Your web browser is not supported You're using Internet Explorer, some features might not work. Please switch to another browser like Chrome, Firefox, or Edge for a better experience.


An official website of the United States government Here's how you know
 **Official websites use .gov**
            
            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
            
            A **lock** ( A locked padlock ) or **https://** means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Federal Election Commission | United States of America Calendar
           Glossary
          Search
              Search


Menu
      Home
      Campaign finance data
        All data
            Raising
            Spending
            Loans and debts
            Filings and reports
            Candidates
            Committees
            Bulk data
            Campaign finance statistics
        Find elections. Search by state or ZIP code
          Look up contributions from specific individuals
      Help for candidates and committees
        All compliance resources
            Guides
            Forms
            Dates and deadlines
            Trainings
        Learn about electronic filing
          Find and contact your committee's analyst
      Legal resources
        All legal resources
            Advisory opinions
            Enforcement
            Statutes
            Legislation
            Regulations
            Court cases
            Policy and other guidance
        Search across all legal resources
          Search guidance documents
      About
        All about the FEC
            News and announcements
            Commission meetings
            Mission and history
            Leadership and structure
            Reports about the FEC
            Careers
            Working with the FEC
            Contact
        Introduction to campaign finance and elections


- Home
- ›
        Legal resources
- ›
        Court cases
- ›
      Van Hollen v. FEC

Van Hollen v. FEC 
 Summary
          
            Documents
 Summary

  
  
    On January 21, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia reversed a 2014 district court decision that invalidated a Commission regulation governing the disclosure of certain donations used to fund electioneering communications. The regulation in question (11 CFR 104.20(c)(9)) requires disclosure of only those donations made for the purpose of furthering electioneering communications. In reversing the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia's 2014 decision, the appellate court upheld the Commission regulation as a reasonable interpretation of the disclosure provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA).BackgroundThe Federal Election Campaign Act ("the Act") defines an electioneering communication as any broadcast, cable or satellite communication that refers to a clearly identified candidate for federal office, is publicly distributed within certain time periods before an election and is targeted to the relevant electorate. 52 U.S.C. §30104(f)(3). Every person who makes disbursements for an electioneering communication aggregating over $10,000 per year must file a report with the FEC identifying, among other things, the person who made the disbursement. 52 U.S.C. §30104(f)(1), (2). If the disbursement is paid out of a segregated account consisting of funds donated by individuals directly to the account for electioneering communications, the report must disclose the names and addresses of all those who donated an aggregate of $1,000 or more within a certain time period to the account. If the disbursements were not made from a segregated account, then the report must disclose the names and addresses of all contributors who contributed over $1,000 within a certain time period to the person making the disbursement. 52 U.S.C. §30104(f)(2)(E).The regulation at issue in this case, 11 CFR 104.20(c)(9), was promulgated in 2007 after the Supreme Court’s decision in FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. which allowed all corporations and unions to make certain types of electioneering communications for the first time.[1] Because these corporations and labor organizations had not previously been permitted to make electioneering communications, the statute did not specify how such electioneering communications should be reported. The Commission’s regulation requires corporations or labor organizations that make electioneering communications to disclose the name and address of each person who made a donation aggregating $1,000 or more to the corporation or labor organization, “for the purpose of furthering electioneering communications.” 11 CFR 104.20(c)(9). (Emphasis added.)In April 2011, Rep. Christopher Van Hollen filed suit against the Commission challenging the regulation as contrary to the law it was supposed to implement. In a 2012 opinion, the district court found that the Act requires every person who funds electioneering communications to disclose all contributors, and the Act cannot be construed to include a "purpose" requirement.On September 18, 2012, the appellate court reversed the judgment of the district court, finding the statute’s disclosure provisions ambiguous. The appeals court remanded the case to the district court for further consideration. The district court then directed the Commission to inform the court whether the agency planned to initiate a rulemaking or defend its current regulation. On October 4, 2012, the Commission informed the court of its decision not to initiate a rulemaking to amend its regulations governing the disclosure of electioneering communications, but instead to continue to defend the current regulation at 11 CFR 104.20(c)(9).Having found the law in question to be ambiguous, the appellate court directed the district court to determine whether the Commission’s regulation is based on a permissible construction of the statute. In its November 2014 opinion, the district court concluded that the Commission's promulgation of 11 CFR 104.20(c)(9) was arbitrary, capricious and contrary to law because it requires disclosure of only those donations made for the purpose of furthering electioneering communications.Court decisionIn its January 21 opinion, the appellate court found the Commission's purpose requirement to be reasonable and consistent with the text, history and purpose of the law. The opinion reiterates the opinion of the previous appeals panel that Congress left the meaning of "contributor" ambiguous and that Congress implicitly delegated authority to the agency to "fill in the statutory gaps." The opinion states the Commission's interpretation of the statute is not only permissible, but persuasive.In analyzing whether the regulation was “arbitrary and capricious,” the opinion described the Commission’s three explanations for the purpose requirement:A "Support Rationale." Without the purpose requirement, individual contributors to a union or corporation who do not support the entity’s electioneering communications could be mistakenly characterized as supporting the messages.A "Burden Rationale." The purpose requirement ensures disclosing entities are not obliged to create an exhaustive list of every individual who provided more than $1,000, which could be very costly and require an inordinate amount of effort.A "Privacy Rationale." The Commission tailored its regulations in a way that both effectuates the law's disclosure requirements and protects the constitutional interests in privacy.The court concluded, "Because we can reasonably discern the FEC’s analytical path from these three rationales, we uphold its purpose requirement against Van Hollen’s challenge."[1] The Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United removed entirely the ban on corporate and union electioneering communications.Source:   FEC Record—February 2016; December 2014; October 2012; September 2012; May 2012; April 2012; June 2011.
 Documents

  
  
    Appeals Court (DC Circuit) (15-5016 & 15-5017)Court decisions:Mandate (10/04/2016)Order (09/26/2016)Order (01/21/2016)Opinion (01/21/2016)Per Curiam Judgment (01/21/2016)Related documents:Response by Appellant Center for Individual Freedom to Petition for Rehearing en banc (04/05/2016)Appellant Hispanic Leadership Fund's Opposition to Appellee Van Hollen's Petition for Rehearing en banc (04/05/2016)Appellee Van Hollen's Petition for Rehearing en banc (03/04/2016)Reply Brief for Appellant Center for Individual Freedom (05/26/2015)Reply Brief of Appellant Hispanic Leadership Fund (05/26/2015)Brief for Appellee Chris Van Hollen (05/11/2015)Brief for the FEC (05/11/2015)First Corrected Opening Brief of Appellant Hispanic Leadership Fund (04/21/2015)Brief of Amicus Curiae Cause of Action Supporting Appellants for Reversal (04/16/2015)Opening Brief for Appellant Center for Individual Freedom (04/10/2015)Opening Brief of Appellant Hispanic Leadership Fund (04/10/2015)Appeals Court (DC Circuit) (12-5117)Court decisions:Mandate (09/18/2012)Judgment (09/18/2012)Order (05/14/2012)Related documents:Reply Brief for Defendant Hispanic Leadership Fund (08/03/2012)Reply Brief for Defendant-Appellant Center for Individual Freedom (08/03/2012)Brief for Appellee Chris Van Hollen (07/20/2012)Corrected Brief Amicus Curiae of Free Speech Coalition, et al. in Support of Appellants and Reversal (06/28/2012)Corrected Opening Brief of Appellant HLF (06/21/2012)Opening Brief of Appellant CFIF (06/20/2012)Corrected Brief of Mitch McConnell, United States Senator, as Amicus Curiae Supporting Appellants for Reversal (06/21/2012)Plaintiff-Appellee's Opposition to Intervenors' Emergency Motions for Stay (04/30/2012)Defendant HLF's Reply to Appellee's Opposition to Emergency Motion for Stay of District Court Order (05/02/2012)Defendant-Appellant CFIF's Reply to Plaintiff-Appellee Van Hollen's Opposition to Intervenors' "Emergency Motions" for Stay (05/02/2012)District Court (DC)Court decisions:Memorandum Opinion (11/25/2014)Order (11/25/2014)Memorandum Opinion (05/01/2013)Order (05/01/2013)Minute Order Lifting Stay (03/12/2013)Minute Order (10/18/2012)Minute Order (10/09/2012)Order (09/20/2012)Memorandum Opinion and Order (04/27/2012)Order (03/30/2012)Memorandum Opinion (03/30/2012)Related documents:Notice of Appeal by Intervenor-Defendant Hispanic Leadership Fund (01/12/2015)Notice of Appeal by Intervenor-Defendant Center for Individual Freedom (01/09/2015)Defendant HLF's Supplemental Briefing on Remanded Issues (05/13/2013)Defendant CFIF's Supplemental Briefing on Remanded Issues (05/13/2013)Defendant FEC's Response to Plaintiff's Supplemental Memorandum (04/29/2013)Plaintiff's Supplemental Briefing on Remanded Issues (04/08/2013)Status Report of Defendant FEC (10/18/2012)Status Report of Defendant CFIF (10/05/2012)FEC Status Report (10/04/2012)Notice of Defendant Federal Election Commission (04/26/2012)Defendant HLF's Notice of No Additional Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition to Motion for Stay Pending Appeal (04/17/2012)Defendant CFIF's Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition to Motion for Stay Pending Appeal (04/17/2012)Defendant HLF's Notice of Appeal (04/13/2012)Defendant CFIF's Notice of Appeal (04/13/2012)Plaintiff's Opposition to Intervenors' Motions for Stay Pending Appeal (04/13/2012)Defendant HLF's Motion for Stay Pending Appeal (04/05/2012)Defendant HLF's Memorandum in Support of its Motion for Stay Pending Appeal (04/05/2012)Defendant CFIF's Motion for Stay Pending Appeal and Memorandum in Support (04/05/2012)Defendant CFIF's Reply to Plaintiff Van Hollen's Opposition to CFIF's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (09/30/2011)Defendant FEC's Reply to the Motions of HLF and CFIF (09/30/2011)Defendant-Intervenor HLF's Reply to Plaintiff Van Hollen's Reply to Intervenors' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Intervenor HLF's Cross-Motion to Dismiss (09/30/2011)Defendant FEC's Reply in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment (09/23/2011)Plaintiff's Reply to Intervenors' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Intervenor CFIF's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Intervenor HLF's Cross-Motion to Dismiss (09/15/2011)Plaintiff's Reply to FEC's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and Opposition to FEC's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (08/30/2011)Defendant Center for Individual Freedom's Opposition to Plaintiff Van Hollen's Motion for Summary Judgment and CFIF's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (08/22/2011)Defendant-Intervenor Hispanic Leadership Fund's Motion to Dismiss and Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss and in Support of Defendant's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment and in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (08/22/2011)Answer of Intervenor/Defendant Hispanic Leadership Fund (08/05/2011)Answer of Intervenor/Defendant Center for Individual Freedom (08/01/2011)Defendant FEC's Motion for Summary Judgment (08/01/2011)Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (07/01/2011)Defendant FEC's Answer (06/21/2011)Complaint (04/21/2011)


This information is not intended to replace the law or to change its meaning, nor does this information create or confer any rights for or on any person or bind the Federal Election Commission or the public. The reader is encouraged also to consult the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended (52 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.), Commission regulations (Title 11 of the Code of Federal Regulations), Commission advisory opinions and applicable court decisions.


About
          Careers
          Press
          Contact
   Privacy and security policy
          Plain language
          No FEAR Act
          Strategy, budget and performance
 Open government
          Protected Voices
          USA.gov
          Inspector General
          FOIA
 OpenFEC API
          GitHub repository
          Release notes
          FEC.gov status


Federal Election Commission
 The FEC's Twitter page
            The FEC's YouTube page Sign up for FECMail


Hide glossary Glossary Search terms