SpeechNow. Org v. FEDERAL ELECTION COM'N
Decision Date | 26 March 2010 |
Docket Number | 09-5342.,No. 08-5223,08-5223 |
Citation | 599 F.3d 686 |
Parties | SPEECHNOW.ORG, et al., Appellants v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, Appellee. David Keating, et al., Appellants v. Federal Election Commission, Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Steven M. Simpson argued the cause for appellants. With him on the brief were William H. Mellor, Robert W. Gall, Robert P. Frommer, Paul M. Sherman, and Stephen M. Hoersting.
Heidi K. Abegg and Alan P. Dye were on the briefs for amici curiae Alliance for Justice, et al. in support of appellants.
David B. Kolker, Associate General Counsel, Federal Election Commission, argued the cause for appellee. With him on the briefs was Vivien Clair, Attorney.
Joseph G. Hebert, Donald J. Simon, Scott L. Nelson, Fred Wertheimer were on the briefs for amici curiae Campaign Legal Center and Democracy 21.
Howard R. Rubin was on the briefs for amici curiae The Brennan Center for Justice and Professor Richard Briffault in support of appellee.
Before: SENTELLE, Chief Judge, GINSBURG, HENDERSON, ROGERS, TATEL, GARLAND, BROWN, GRIFFITH, and KAVANAUGH, Circuit Judges.
Opinion for the Court filed by Chief Judge SENTELLE.
David Keating is president of an unincorporated nonprofit association, SpeechNow.org (SpeechNow), that intends to engage in express advocacy1 supporting candidates for federal office who share his views on First Amendment rights of free speech and freedom to assemble. In January 2008, the Federal Election Committee (FEC) issued a draft advisory opinion concluding that under the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), SpeechNow would be required to organize as a "political committee" as defined by 2 U.S.C. § 431(4) and would be subject to all the requirements and restrictions concomitant with that designation. Keating and four other individuals availed themselves of 2 U.S.C. § 437h, under which an individual may seek declaratory judgment to construe the constitutionality of any provision of FECA. As required by that provision, the district court certified the constitutional questions directly to this court for en banc determination. Thereafter, the Supreme Court decided Citizens United v. FEC, ___ U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 876, ___ L.Ed.2d ___ (2010), which resolves this appeal. In accordance with that decision, we hold that the contribution limits of 2 U.S.C. § 441a(a)(1)(C) and 441a(a)(3) are unconstitutional as applied to individuals' contributions to SpeechNow. However, we also hold that the reporting requirements of 2 U.S.C. § § 432, 433, and 434(a) and the organizational requirements of 2 U.S.C. § 431(4) and 431(8) can constitutionally be applied to SpeechNow. In this action the district court also denied the plaintiffs' motion to enjoin FEC enforcement of FECA's contribution limits against SpeechNow. Because we hold that those provisions cannot be constitutionally applied, we vacate the order denying that injunction and remand the matter to the district court for further proceedings consistent with our decision.
SpeechNow is an unincorporated nonprofit association registered as a "political organization" under § 527 of the Internal Revenue Code. Its purpose is to promote the First Amendment rights of free speech and freedom to assemble by expressly advocating for federal candidates whom it views as supporting those rights and against those whom it sees as insufficiently committed to those rights. It intends to acquire funds solely through donations by individuals. SpeechNow further intends to operate exclusively through "independent expenditures." FECA defines "independent expenditures" as expenditures "expressly advocating the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate" that are "not made in concert or cooperation with or at the request or suggestion of such candidate, the candidate's authorized political committee, or their agents, or a political party committee or its agents." 2 U.S.C. § 431(17). SpeechNow has five members, two of whom are plaintiffs in this case: David Keating, who is also SpeechNow's president and treasurer, and Edward Crane. Keating makes the operational decisions for SpeechNow, including in which election campaigns to run advertisements, which candidates to support or oppose, and all administrative decisions.
Though it has not yet begun operations, SpeechNow has made plans both for fundraising and for making independent expenditures. All five of the individual plaintiffs — Keating, Crane, Fred Young, Brad Russo, and Scott Burkhardt — are prepared to donate to SpeechNow. Keating proposes to donate $5500. Crane proposes to donate $6000. Young, who is otherwise unaffiliated with SpeechNow, proposes to donate $110,000. Russo and Burkhardt want to make donations of $100 each. In addition, as of August 2008, seventy-five other individuals had indicated on SpeechNow's website that they were interested in making donations. As for expenditures, SpeechNow planned ads for the 2008 election cycle against two incumbent candidates for federal office who, in the opinion of SpeechNow, did not sufficiently support First Amendment rights. These ads would have cost around $12,000 to produce. Keating intended to place the ads so that the target audience would view the ads at least ten times, which would have cost around $400,000. As SpeechNow never accepted any donations, it never produced or ran these ads. However, SpeechNow intends to run similar ads for the 2010 election cycle if it is not subject to the contribution limits of § 441a(a) at issue in this case.
On November 19, 2007, SpeechNow filed with the FEC a request for an advisory opinion, asking whether it must register as a political committee and if donations to SpeechNow qualify as "contributions" limited by § 441a(a)(1)(C) and 441a(a)(3). At the time, the FEC did not have enough commissioners to issue an opinion, but it did issue a draft advisory opinion stating that SpeechNow would be a political committee and contributions to it would be subject to the political committee contribution limits. Believing that subjecting SpeechNow to all the restrictions imposed on political committees would be unconstitutional, SpeechNow and the five individual plaintiffs filed a complaint in the district court requesting declaratory relief against the FEC under 2 U.S.C. § 437h. Because § 437h allows only the FEC, political parties, or individuals the right to bring such actions, this court removed SpeechNow from the § 437h proceedings. SpeechNow remains in the caption for this case because it, along with the individual plaintiffs, also sought a preliminary injunction prohibiting the FEC from enforcing the political committee contribution limits with respect to contributions to SpeechNow, and the denial of that injunction is also on appeal before this court. Because this court was already scheduled to hear the constitutional issues en banc, we consolidated the appeal with the en banc proceeding.
Section 437h provides that a "district court immediately shall certify all questions of constitutionality of this Act FECA to the United States court of appeals for the circuit involved, which shall hear the matter sitting en banc." The district court made findings of fact, and certified to this court five questions:
SpeechNow.org v. FEC, No. 08-0248, 2009 WL 3101036 (D.D.C. Sept. 28, 2009).
Under FECA, a political committee is "any committee, club, association, or other group of persons" that receives contributions of more than $1000 in a year or makes expenditures of more than $1000 in a year. 2 U.S.C. § 431(4). Once a group is so designated, contributions to the committee are restricted by 2 U.S.C. § 441a(a)(1)(C) and 441a(a)(3). The first provision limits an individual's contribution to a political committee to $5000 per calendar year; the second limits an individual's total contributions to all political committees to $69,900 biennially.2See Price Index Increases for Contribution and Expenditure Limitations, 74 Fed.Reg. 7437 (Feb. 17, 2009) ( ). A political committee also must comply with all applicable recordkeeping and reporting requirements of 2 U.S.C. §§ 432, 433, and 434(a). Under those sections, if the FEC regulates SpeechNow as a political committee, SpeechNow would be required...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In Re: Anh Cao
...see WRTL, and decades-old speech restrictions, see Citizens United. Lower courts have conformed to this trend. SpeechNow.org v. FEC, 599 F.3d 686 (D.C.Cir.2010); N.M. Youth Organized v. Herrera, 611 F.3d 669 (10th Cir.2010). In each of those instances, the Supreme Court has demanded, to jus......
-
Alliance v. Salazar
... ... (ESA), addressing the impact of the coordinated operations of the federal Central Valley Project (CVP) and State Water Project (SWP) on the ... recognized the sufficiency of informational injuries in Federal Election Commission v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11, 118 S.Ct. 1777, 141 L.Ed.2d 10 (1998) ... ...
-
Libertarian Nat'l Comm., Inc. v. Fed. Election Comm'n, Civil Action No. 16–cv–00121 (BAH)
...likewise might be thought capable of exerting corrupting influence on political officeholders under proper circumstances. In SpeechNow.org v. FEC , however, the D.C. Circuit concluded that "contributions to groups that make only independent expenditures also cannot corrupt or create the app......
-
Stop this Insanity, Inc. Emp. Leadership Fund v. Fed. Election Comm'n
...of corruption.” Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310, 130 S.Ct. 876, 909, 175 L.Ed.2d 753 (2010) ; see also SpeechNow.org v. FEC, 599 F.3d 686, 696 (D.C.Cir.2010) (“[T]he government can have no anti-corruption interest in limiting contributions to independent expenditure-only organizations......
-
Three Can Keep A Secret, If Two Of Them Are Dead: A Thought Experiment Around Compelled Public Disclosure Of 'Anonymous' Political Expenditures
...political activities. 9 2010 Op. Fed. Election Comm'n 9, 2010 WL 3184267, at *1 (July 22). 10 130 S. Ct. 876 (2010). 11 SpeechNow v. FEC, 599 F.3d 686, 689 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (holding that individuals may make unlimited independent expenditures and unlimited contributions to independent expen......
-
Super-PACs And Elections: Separating Myth From Reality
...that these limits were unconstitutional as applied to an independent expenditure- only group. SpeechNow.Org v. Federal Election Comm'n, 599 F.3d 686 (D.C. Cir. 11 Although commentators typically condemn the potential sums of new political money from corporations, they often overlook the fac......
-
ELECTION LAW VIOLATIONS
...of disclosure requirements); Ctr. for Individual Freedom v. Madigan, 697 F.3d 464, 477–78 (7th Cir. 2012); SpeechNow.org v. FEC, 599 F.3d 686, 698 (D.C. Cir. 2010). 86. Citizens United, 558 U.S. at 365–67 (finding § 30104(f)’s and § 30120’s disclosure and disclaimer requirements constituti......
-
Election Law Violations
...labor organization communications differently than corporate communications under the First Amendment.”). 62. SpeechNow.org v. FEC, 599 F.3d 686, 694–96 (D.C. Cir. 2010). The D.C. Circuit summarily affirmed this holding in an unpublished, per curiam opinion in Lieu v. FEC, No. 19-5072, 201......
-
The Bribery Double Standard: Leveraging the Foreign-Domestic Divide.
...coordinating with their campaign."). Following the decisions in Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010) and SpeechNow.org v. FEC, 599 F.3d 686 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (en banc), the FEC issued advisory opinions approving political committees that would make only independent expenditures--i.e.,......
-
Terrorism and Associations
...Political Action Comm. v. Barland, 664 F.3d 139, 152 (7th Cir. 2011) (quoting Colo. Republican, 533 U.S. at 440); SpeechNow.org v. FEC, 599 F.3d 686, 692 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (quoting Davis v. FEC, 554 U.S. 724, 740 n.7 (2008)); Carver v. Nixon, 72 F.3d 633, 636 (8th Cir. 1995) (quoting Buckley......
-
Chapter 259, SB 246 – Revises provisions relating to committees for political action
...Individual Freedom v. Madigan, 697 F.3d 464 (7th Cir. 2012); Family PAC v. McKenna, 685 F.3d 800 (9th Cir. 2012); SpeechNow.org v. FEC, 599 F.3d 686 (D.C. Cir. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, REPRESENTED IN SENATE AND ASSEMBLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS: Section 1.NRS 294A.0055 is hereby amend......
-
11 C.F.R. § 114.2 Prohibitions On Contributions, Expenditures and Electioneering Communications
...as defined in 11 CFR 11undefined114.1(a) in connection with any Federal election. NOTE TO PARAGRAPH (b): Pursuant to SpeechNow.org v. FEC, 599 F.3d 686 (D.C. 2010) (en banc), and Carey v. FEC, 791 F. Supp. 2d 121 (D.D.C. 2011), corporations and labor organizations may make contributions to ......
-
11 C.F.R. § 114.10 Corporations and Labor Organizations Making Independent Expenditures and Electioneering Communications
...CFR 11undefined109.21, or contributions as defined in 11 CFR part 100, subpart B.NOTE TO PARAGRAPH (a): Pursuant to SpeechNow.org v. FEC, 599 F.3d 686 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (en banc), and Carey v. FEC, 791 F. Supp. 2d 121 (D.D.C. 2011), corporations and labor organizations may make contributions......