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
- ›
      Free Speech v. FEC (District court)

FEC Record: Litigation*Free Speech v. FEC* (District court)April 2, 2013 On March 19, 2013, the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming dismissed a case brought by Free Speech (plaintiff) that challenged the constitutionality of a Commission regulation and certain Commission policies and sought preliminary and permanent
    injunctions against the Commission’s enforcement of them. The Wyoming nonprofit had challenged the Commission’s regulatory definition of “express advocacy,” the Commission’s interpretation of what constitutes a “solicitation” under the Federal Election
    Campaign Act (the Act), and how the Commission determines whether an organization is a political committee, including the Commission’s application of the “major purpose” test. The court denied the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction in a telephonic ruling on October 3, 2012. The plaintiff has appealed the district court’s dismissal of the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Express advocacy Commission regulations define express advocacy communications as those that: (a) use explicit words of advocacy; or (b) in context, can only be interpreted by a reasonable person as advocating a candidate’s election or defeat. 11 CFR 100.22(a) and (b).
    Communications that meet either of the regulatory definitions and are not coordinated with a candidate or party are independent expenditures and must be disclosed. See 2 U.S.C. §434(c) and 11 CFR 109.10. Free Speech argued that the Commission’s interpretation of express advocacy at 11 CFR 100.22(b) is vague and offers no clear guidelines for speakers to tailor their constitutionally protected conduct and speech, and that the regulation fails to limit
    its application to expenditures for communications that in express terms advocate the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate (i.e., through use of the so-called “magic words” such as “vote for,” “elect,” “support,” etc.). The district court noted that the Supreme Court has ruled in several cases that the definition of express advocacy may also include, in addition to use of the “magic words,” communications that are the “functional equivalent” of express advocacy. See
    McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. at 193 (2003) and FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. (WRTL), 551 U.S. 449 (2007). In WRTL, the Supreme Court stated that other courts should find that a communication is the functional equivalent of express advocacy “only if the ad is susceptible of no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a specific
    candidate.” WRTL, 551 U.S. at 460-470. The district court noted that the functional equivalent test is closely correlated to the Commission’s regulation at 100.22(b), which provides that a communication is express advocacy if it “could only be interpreted
    by a reasonable person as containing advocacy of the election or defeat of one or more clearly identified candidate(s).” The Supreme Court also addressed the issue of express advocacy in Citizens United v. FEC (2010). The court found that a communication at issue in that case was
    the functional equivalent of express advocacy and further upheld the disclosure requirements as they applied to all “electioneering communications.” As a result, the district court held that the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United directly contradicts the plaintiff’s argument that the definition of 100.22(b) is overly broad with respect to disclosure requirements: “if mandatory disclosure requirements
    are permissible when applied to ads that merely mention a federal candidate, then applying the same burden to ads that go further and are the functional equivalent of express advocacy cannot automatically be impermissible.” Solicitation standard Commission regulations require any person who solicits a contribution through any broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine, outdoor advertising facility, mailing or any other type of general public political advertising to include an explicit disclaimer
    on the solicitation. 2 U.S.C. §441d(a). The Commission determines whether a request for funds amounts to a “solicitation” based on whether the request indicates that the contributions will be targeted to the election or defeat of a clearly identified federal candidate. See FEC v. Survival Education Fund, Inc., 65 F.3d 285, 293 (2d Cir. 1995). The plaintiff challenged this approach, arguing that it is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. The court disagreed with the plaintiff and noted that the plaintiff is free to spend unlimited funds on its solicitations and to solicit unlimited funds for its express advocacy activities. Communications that amount to solicitations merely trigger disclosure
    requirements; they do not prevent the plaintiff from speaking. Since disclosure serves an important governmental interest in insuring that the voters are fully informed about the person or the group who is speaking, the court held that the plaintiff
    had failed to establish any constitutional deficiency in the Commission’s approach to determining whether a communication is a solicitation for contributions. Political committee status The plaintiff also challenged the Commission’s method of determining when an organization meets the definition of “political committee.” The Act and Commission regulations define a political committee as “any committee, club, association or other group
    of persons” that makes more than $1,000 in expenditures or receives more than $1,000 in contributions during a calendar year. 2 U.S.C. 431(4)(A). In Buckley v. Valeo (1976), the Supreme Court concluded that defining a political committee only in terms
    of contributions and expenditures “could be interpreted to reach groups engaged purely in issue discussion.” As such, the Court limited application of the Commission’s political committee requirement to organizations either controlled by a candidate
    or those groups whose “major purpose” is the nomination or election of candidates. The Commission has adopted a case-by-case analysis of an organization’s conduct and activities for evaluating whether an organization’s major purpose is the nomination or election of federal candidates. See Political Committee Status, 72 Fed. Reg. 5595, 5601 (Feb. 7, 2007). The district court held that the Commission’s method of determining political committee status is a permissible approach that is consistent with Supreme Court precedent and does not unlawfully hinder protected speech. Court decision The district court granted the Commission’s motion to dismiss. Resources:  Free Speech v. FEClitigation page
 Author
          Myles MartinIcon of email being sentPublic Affairs Specialist


Read next: FEC to host April 24 (2013) seminar/webinar for corporations and their political action committees
 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