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
- ›
      FEC Record: Litigation
- ›
      Stop This Insanity, Inc., Employee Leadership Fund, et al. v. FEC (Appeals court)

FEC Record: Litigation*Stop This Insanity, Inc., Employee Leadership Fund, et al. v. FEC* (Appeals court)August 7, 2014 On August 5, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision to dismiss a constitutional challenge to provisions that impose limitations on a corporation’s solicitations for contributions to
    its separate segregated fund (SSF). The court rejected the challenge brought by Stop the Insanity, Inc. (STII) and Stop This Insanity, Inc. Employee Leadership Fund (the Fund), and upheld the statutory restrictions on SSF solicitations, including
    provisions that generally permit SSFs to solicit only a limited class of individuals for contributions. The court noted that it lacked jurisdiction over the claims brought by the individual plaintiffs because such claims were not asserted through
    the mandatory jurisdictional provision in 2 U.S.C. §437h.  **Background** Prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in *Citizens United v. FEC*, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), the Federal Election Campaign Act (the Act) generally restricted corporations from participating in the electoral process, but allowed limited, indirect
    corporate political activity through the establishment of an SSF. 2 U.S.C. §441b(b)(2)(C). The costs of establishing, administering and soliciting for an SSF may be paid exclusively by the SSF’s sponsoring entity (the connected organization) and such
    costs are not subject to disclosure requirements. However, the Act imposes restrictions on SSF solicitations, including limits on who may be solicited to contribute to the SSF: Shareholders, executive and administrative personnel and the families
    of both groups may be solicited, but not the general public. 2 U.S.C. § 441b(b)(4)(A)(i).  STII is the connected organization of the Fund, its SSF. STII wished to be able to solicit the general public for contributions to a separate account that was to be opened by the Fund and used solely to make independent expenditures, while not disclosing
    its payments for the administrative and solicitation costs of the Fund. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the case on November 5, 2012,
    and STII and the other plaintiffs appealed that decision to the Court of Appeals.  **Court of Appeals decision** The Court of Appeals disagreed with STII’s constitutional claims, holding that they fell short on the merits. The court stated that, “Simply put, Stop This Insanity would like to use its segregated fund to solicit the entire public while concealing
    its expenses for such solicitation.”  Although Stop This Insanity, Inc. has the ability to make independent expenditures directly from its corporate treasury funds without using an SSF to do so, the court noted that it nonetheless chose to establish an SSF to make such independent expenditures:
    “Despite the availability of a more robust option—at least when it comes to independent expenditures—the Corporation has decided to do things the hard way. And now, trapped in a snare it has fashioned for itself, STII decries its inability to use
    the [SSF] in the way it sees fit—without the limits Congress attached to the operation of these funds.” The court wrote that a “critical flaw” in STII’s argument was that it voluntarily chose a more complicated means of engaging in its political speech than it had to use and “claims [that] there is a constitutional right to do things the hard way. We cannot
    sanction such an illogical conclusion.” The court further noted that no PAC has the ability to make solicitations of the general public (as opposed to only a limited class of individuals) for contributions to pay for political speech without disclosing
    who is funding the PAC’s administrative and solicitation expenses. The court explained that solicitation restrictions do not restrict the manner or amount in which a PAC may spend money, and held that the solicitation restrictions challenged by STII “are not properly treated as constraints on independent expenditures,”
    nor do they “silence” a particular speaker. The court declined to accept the argument of STII, writing that STII already is capable of conducting broad solicitations, yet “it wants a vehicle capable of soliciting without transparency.” In affirming the District Court’s dismissal, the Court of Appeals
    held that “[i]f the Fund wishes to solicit freely, it must do so in the light.” **Resources:** *STII v. FEC* litigation page
    AOR 2012-01 [PDF]
 Author
          Myles MartinIcon of email being sentPublic Affairs Specialist


Read next: La Botz v. FEC (Dismissal)
 Related: Explore campaign finance data »


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