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
- ›
      Wagner, et al. v. FEC (Miller v. FEC)

Wagner, et al. v. FEC (Miller v. FEC) 
 Summary
          
            Documents
 Summary

  
  
    On July 7, 2015, the en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the provision in the Federal Election Campaign Act (the Act) that prohibits contributions made in connection with federal elections by federal government contractors.On October 2, 2015, Ms. Miller filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court denied the petition on January 19, 2016.BackgroundThe Act prohibits federal government contractors from making contributions, either directly or indirectly, in connection with federal elections. 52 U.S.C. § 30119 (formerly 2 U.S.C. § 441c). In Wagner v. FEC, three federal contractors challenged § 30119 as violating the First Amendment and the equal protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment. On November 2, 2012, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia upheld the federal contractor ban and concluded that Congress had the authority to prohibit contributions from all federal contractors. On May 31, 2013, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that the Act denied the district court and that appellate panel jurisdiction to consider the constitutional questions in Wagner v. FEC. The court vacated the lower court's judgment and remanded the case to the district court to comply with the Act’s judicial review provision at 52 U.S.C. § 30110 (formerly 2 U.S.C. § 437h). On June 5, 2013, the district court entered an order issuing its findings of fact and certifying constitutional questions to the en banc court of appeals.DecisionOn July 7, 2015, the en banc court of appeals unanimously rejected the plaintiffs' constitutional challenges and upheld the statute.The court first addressed the standing of the three plaintiffs. Nearly four years have passed since the case was filed, and in that time, Wendy Wagner and Lawrence Brown completed their federal contracts. Since they are once again able to make contributions in connection with a federal election, the court declared Wagner and Brown’s claims moot. Jan Miller, the remaining plaintiff, has an ongoing federal contract, but the court determined that its jurisdiction was narrowed by Miller’s limited claim: application of the statute to contributions by an individual contractor to a federal candidate or political party. (Wagner and Brown wanted to support a variety of political "causes" and had contributed to PACs and other political committees in the past.)In addressing the remaining plaintiff’s First Amendment challenges, the court rejected the argument that it must review the claims under a strict scrutiny standard. The court referenced the Supreme Court’s instructions to review laws that regulate campaign contributions under a "closely drawn" standard—"a lesser but still rigorous standard of review" where even a significant interference with protected rights of political association may be sustained if the state 1) demonstrates a sufficiently important interest and 2) employs means closely drawn to avoid unnecessary abridgment of associational freedoms.Applying this "closely drawn" standard, the court accepted the FEC's assertions that the statute demonstrates a sufficiently important interest because it protects against quid pro quo corruption and its appearance and prevents interference with merit-based public administration. The court found persuasive the lengthy review of federal and state legislative efforts to combat corruption and concluded that "substantial evidence demonstrates" that individuals and firms continue to test the limits of the contractor contribution ban at both the federal and state levels. "[T]he evidence canvassed thus far suffices to show that, in government contracting, the risk of quid pro quo corruption and its appearance, and of interference with merit-based administration, has not dissipated. Taken together, the record offers every reason to believe that, if the dam barring contributions were broken, more money in exchange for contracts would flow through the same channels already on display.... The interests supporting the contractor contribution statute are legally sufficient, and the dangers it seeks to combat are real and supported by the historical and factual record."The court also found that the statute employed means closely drawn to avoid unnecessary abridgment of associational freedoms. The plaintiffs had argued that the statute fails this test because it is overinclusive and bans their contributions entirely, and that it is underinclusive because it permits too much speech and fails to ban contributions by certain groups. In rejecting the overinclusive argument, the court pointed out that, although campaign contributions are banned, there are other forms of unrestricted political engagement in which the plaintiffs could participate. The ban was also temporally limited to the time between commencement of negotiations and completion of the contract’s performance. See 52 U.S.C. § 30119(a)(1). The court also rejected the plaintiffs' underinclusive argument by stating that although Congress could have swept in more potential contributors, the statute aims squarely at the conduct most likely to undermine its underlying interests.Finally, the court rejected the plaintiffs' equal protection argument. The plaintiffs had maintained that the statute subjects individual contractors to a ban that does not apply to certain similarly situated persons. The court rejected this approach as an attempt to get the court to reevaluate the same claims under a strict scrutiny standard.The court issued its judgment and order in favor of the FEC, finding that the flat prohibition of contractor contributions was closely drawn to the important goals of preventing quid pro quo corruption and its appearance and interference with merit based administration. Therefore, application of 52 U.S.C. § 30119 to contributions by an individual contractor to a federal candidate or political party does not violate the First Amendment or the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.On October 2, 2015, Ms. Miller filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court asking if the federal government contractor ban at 52 U.S.C. § 30119 is sufficiently tailored to meet the Constitutional requirements under the First and Fifth Amendments. The Court denied the petition on January 19, 2016.Source:   FEC Record — August 2015; July 2013; November 2012; April 2012; February 2012
 Documents

  
  
    Supreme Court (Miller v. FEC)Court decisions:Certiorari Denied (01/19/2016)Related documents:Reply Brief in Support of Petition for a Writ of Certiorari (12/22/2015)Brief for the Respondent in Opposition (12/16/2015)Petition for a Writ of Certiorari (10/02/2015)Appeals Court (DC Circuit) (13-5162)Court decisions:Mandate (09/08/2015)Order (07/07/2015)Opinion (07/07/2015)Judgment (07/07/2015)Order (05/29/2014)Per Curiam Order (09/11/2013)Per Curiam Order (06/07/2013)Related documents:Letter from Supreme Court: Certiorari Denied (01/19/2016)Supplemental Brief for the FEC (05/02/2014)Supplemental Brief for Plaintiffs (04/25/2014)Reply Brief for Plaintiffs (08/23/2013)Brief for the FEC (08/09/2013)Brief Amici Curiae of Campaign Legal Center, et al. in Support of Defendant (08/09/2013)Corrected Brief of Amici Curiae Center for Competitive Politics and Cato Institute in Support of Appellants and Urging Reversal (07/11/2013)Brief for Plaintiffs (07/03/2013)Appeals Court (DC Circuit) (12-5365)Court decisions:Per Curiam Order re: Motion to Recall and Stay Reissuance of Mandate (06/06/2013)Judgment (05/31/2013)Per Curiam Opinion (05/31/2013)Order (05/03/2013)Related documents:Motion to Recall and Stay Reissuance of Mandate (05/31/2013)Supplemental Brief for the FEC (05/10/2013)Supplemental Brief for Plaintiffs-Appellants (05/09/2013)Reply Brief for Plaintiffs-Appellants (Corrected) (03/11/2013)Brief Amici Curiae of Campaign Legal Center, Democracy 21 and Public Citizen in Support of Appellee and Urging Affirmance (02/27/2013)Brief for the FEC (02/20/2013)Brief for Plaintiff-Appellants (01/16/2013)District Court (DC)Court decisions:Certification Order (06/05/2013)Mandate (05/31/2013)Order (11/02/2012)Memorandum Opinion (11/02/2012)Order (04/16/2012)Memorandum Opinion (04/16/2012)Stipulation and Proposed Order Regarding Scheduling (12/07/2011)Related documents:Notice of Appeal (11/08/2012)Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Motion to Strike Defendant's Statement of Material Facts (09/14/2012)Defendant FEC's Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Defendant's Statement of Material Facts (09/07/2012)Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Response to Memorandum of Amici Campaign Legal Center and Democracy 21 (08/30/2012)Memorandum of Campaign Legal Center and Democracy 21 as Amicus Curiae in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment (08/23/2012)Motion of the Campaign Legal Center and Democracy 21 to Participate as Amici Curiae with Supporting Memorandum of Law (08/22/2012)Defendant's Memorandum in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment and in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment (08/15/2012)Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (08/15/2012)Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support (07/12/2012)Plaintiffs' Reply Statement of Points and Authorities in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (03/12/2012)Defendant FEC's Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (03/01/2012)Defendant FEC's Answer to Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint (02/17/2012)Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (01/31/2012)Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint (01/31/2012)Defendant FEC's Answer to Plaintiffs' Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (12/19/2011)Defendant FEC's Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Facts (12/05/2011)Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Support of their Motion to Certify Facts (11/17/2011)Complaint (10/19/2011)


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