Document: 455 U.S. 577 102 S.Ct. 1235 71 L.Ed.2d 432 BREAD POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE, et al., Appellants,v.FEDERAL ELECTION al. No. 80-1481. Argued Jan. 19, 1982. Decided March 8, Syllabus Section 310(a) of the Federal Election Campaign Act 1971 lists three categories plaintiffs who may challenge constitutionality any provision in a federal district court action which must certify all questions to appeals sitting en banc: (1) Commission, (2) "the national committee political party," and (3) "any individual eligible vote election for office President." Appellants, two trade associations committees (PAC's), filed an District Court, challenging validity provisions limiting extent such their PAC's solicit funds purposes, sought expedited consideration under § 310(a). The Court denied on ground that appellants were not within listed as invoke 310(a)'s procedures. Appeals reversed remanded, holding is available use by whether they belong enumerated category or not, subsequent certification from upheld challenged solicitation provisions. Held: Only parties belonging one its procedures, since are those categories, text states plainly enough special This plain language controls construction 310(a), absent "clear evidence" "clearly expressed" contrary congressional intent, have met burden showing intent. fact Congress wanted broad class be speedily resolved does imply it intended courts augment enumeration qualified plaintiffs. Nor there merit appellants' contention specified classes simply remove doubts about standing, but exclude others implication. Pp. 580-585. 635 F.2d 621, remanded. Jeffrey Cole, Chicago, Ill., appellants. Charles N. Steele, Washington, D. C., appellees. Justice O'CONNOR delivered opinion Court. 1 (FECA), 88 Stat. 1285, amended, 2 U.S.C. 437h(a) (1976 ed., Supp.IV), constitutional FECA specially suits: Commission (FEC), In this case, we address question expressly reserved California Medical Assn. v. FEC, 453 182, 187 n. 6, 101 2712, 2717, 69 567 (1981): party nonetheless * (PAC's): National Restaurant Association associated PAC, Restaurateurs Politicyl Action Committee, Lumber Building Material Dealers Political Bread PAC with American Bakers Association. order 441b(b)(4)(D), has effect purposes,1 United States Northern Illinois, seeking suit procedures set forth 437h.2 437h plaintiff do On interlocutory appeal ruling, panel reversed, not. 591 29 (CA7 1979). remand, required 437h(a), first made findings then certified case back banc determination raised declined overrule earlier decision regarding reach proceeded merits claims, upholding 621 1980). present followed, confronting us should construed permit parties, appellants, specifically classes, II 3 Our analysis issue statutory "must begin statute itself," Dawson Chemical Co. Rohm & Haas Co., 448 176, 187, 100 2601, 2607, 65 696 (1980), "[a]bsent clearly expressed legislative intention contrary, ordinarily regarded conclusive." Consumer Product Safety Comm'n GTE Sylvania, Inc., 447 102, 108, 2051, 2056, 64 766 (1980). Moreover, when creates, does, cases command immediate attention banc, displacing existing caseloads calling judges away normal duties sittings, close takes added importance. As said: "Jurisdictional statutes 'with precision fidelity terms wishes'; particularly prone accord 'strict authorizing appeals' Court." Palmore States, 411 389, 396, 93 1670, 1675, 36 342 (1973) (citations omitted). short, construction, at least absence evidence," Apfelbaum, 445 115, 121, 948, 952, 68 250 contrary," supra, 2056. 4 procedures: "The party, Thus, affords unique system review carefully chosen persons might meet minimum standing requirements Art. III. only artificial entitled charged enforcing Act, play central role process. 5 face obvious meaning urge what concede "expansive construction" section. Reply Brief Appellants 3. Indeed, advocate could more expansive, apparently argue permissible defined outermost limits however, fall far short providing intention" afforded other than categories. 6 fact, section's history too brief ambiguous provide much solace either side controversy. When Senator Buckley introduced section during deliberations Amendments 1974, he limited his explanation following comments: "[I]t modification I am sure will prove acceptable managers bill. It merely provides expeditious raised. agree if, serious legislation, interest everyone determined Supreme earliest possible time." 120 Cong. Rec. 10562 (1974).3 7 House, Representative Frenzel echoed theme responding another Member House Amendments: 8 "Any time pass legislation field causing many myself. think gentleman pointed out good one. We done best bring bill hope test. But, doubt some quickly. 9 "I call direct method raise these considered quickly Id., 35140 (emphasis added). 10 These remarks Members nearly exhaust nevertheless suggest comments suffice that, passing 437h, focused solely expediting resolution disputes over FECA, was unconcerned identity support view, point sentence authorized suits "any" while second requires "all" banc. According extended compels inference also plaintiffs, even Act. 11 resolved, scarcely implies Congress' if suggests anything, structure knew how specify raised, therefore easily directed person 437h. But did so. Instead, went trouble specifying precisely types entities natural actions. 12 Reaching support, hypothesize explicit authorization, members prudential imposes. See, e. g., Warth Seldin, 422 490, 498-501, 95 2197, 2204-2206, 45 343 (1975). argument, puts awkward position simultaneously noting express authorization overcome limitations, urging read implicit grant into silence. Of course, had result desire, achieved granting III, listing specific examples now 437h(a). gave no affirmative indication meant include beyond classes. 13 For reasons, cannot impute confer broadest imaginable. assume maximum jurisdiction permitted Constitution, clearer mandate here expressed. hold meeting Because requirements, 14 complain practical ruling escape review, thereby defeating intent FECA. Without provided extremely sketchy believe evidence found itself, where Others, evidently, remitted usual remedies. 15 note, moreover, our today raises threat aggrieved unable litigate arising affects availability extraordinary 437g, example, permits or, proper circumstances, private civil enforce themselves given treatment 437g(a)(10), being advanced calendar ahead actions except higher priority 437g challenge, nonconstitutional, defense enforcement action, review.4 Furthermore, can federal-question granted 28 1331 Supp.IV).5 16 sum, expression" make Accordingly, reverse remand proceedings consistent opinion. 17 So ordered. Title 441b(b)(4)(D) incorporated association contributions (PAC) stockholders executive administrative personnel member corporations families personnel, families, been separately approved corporation involved, approve year." Other members, 441b(b)(4)(C), own 441b(b)(4)(A). That provides: "Actions, including declaratory judgments questions; plaintiffs; "(a) President institute appropriate judgment, construe immediately shall circuit hear matter "Appeal Court; "(b) Notwithstanding law, subsection (a) reviewable directly States. Such brought later 20 days after appeals. "Advancement appellate docket disposition "(c) duty advance expedite greatest section." §§ 437h(a)-(c) ed. Supp.IV). similar adopted 26 9011(b) "Commission, individuals President" implement Presidential Fund 9001-9013. Perhaps because Buckley's remains uncertain, submitted affidavits David A. Keene, Executive Assistant prepared original draft expressing belief amendment organizations See Affidavit James (Nov. 11, 1977), reprinted App. 110, 112; Keene (Oct. 21, 106, 109. give probative weight affidavits, "[s]uch statements 'represent personal views th[is] legislato[r], [made] passage Act.' " Regional Rail Reorganization Cases, 419 132, 335, 42 320 (1974), quoting Woodwork Manufacturers NLRB, 386 612, 639 34, 87 1250, 1265, 18 357 (1967). Quern Mandley, 436 725, 736, 10, 98 2068, 2075, 56 658 (1978), noted "post hoc observations single carry little weight." anomaly created, unless nonconstitutional challenges defenses service 437g(a)(10) treated like docket. No exists ever pondered subtlety, did, thought it. Suffice say consider possibility seen fit claims defendants, shed light purpose enumerating opinion, 1331.

Category: 2