Document: 454 U.S. 27 102 S.Ct. 38 70 L.Ed.2d 23 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, Petitioner,v.DEMOCRATIC SENATORIAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE et al. NATIONAL REPUBLICAN COMMITTEE, Petitioner, v. DEMOCRATIC Nos. 80-939, 80-1129. Argued Oct. 6, 1981. Decided Nov. 10, Syllabus One provision of the Federal Election Campaign Act 1971 (Act), 2 U.S.C. § 441a(d)(3), limits amount that national committee and state committees a political party may spend in connection with general election candidate for United States Senate or House Representatives. Petitioner National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) is organized to support candidates Senate. Although authorizes NRSC contribute up certain such candidates, it not authorized make expenditures on their behalf. The Commission (FEC), however, has permitted act as agent making When Party designated 441a(d)(3) expenditure purposes, respondent Democratic filed complaint FEC, asserting NRSC's agreements were contrary 441a(d)(3). FEC dismissed complaint, concluding there was "no reason believe" violated Act. On review, District Court granted FEC's motion summary judgment, holding decision "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse discretion, otherwise accordance law." Appeals reversed ground "plain language" precluded agency between NRSC. Held: Section does expressly by necessary implication foreclose use agreements, are at issue here, thus acted within authority vested Congress when determined permit agreements. Pp. 31-43. (a) While authorize its own right, follow expenditures. Nothing statute suggests designate another be alter ego behalf purposes Nor legislative history purport disapprove arrangements. 31-36. (b) Under standard whether construction "sufficiently reasonable" accepted reviewing court, correct accepting judgment. view logically consistent 441a(a)(4)—which transfer funds among national, state, local same party—is acceptable. And interpretation inconsistent any discernible purpose 36-42. 212 U.S.App.D.C. 374, 660 F.2d 773, reversed. Charles Nevett Steele, Washington, D. C., Commission. Jan W. Baran, Committee. Robert F. Bauer, respondents. Justice WHITE delivered opinion Court. 1 1971, 86 Stat. 11, amended, 431 seq. (1976 ed. Supp.IV), contributions made federal office. Act, 441a(d), limited campaign After authorizing expenditures, which would impermissible,1 section specifies Presidential campaign, 441a(d)(2), Representatives, In this litigation we examine designates senatorial allowed * specifically elections 441a(h) $17,500 Senate, given 441a(d) position Commission, charged enforcement do so account. 3 February 1977, response inquiry submitted late 1976, issued Advisory Opinion, 1976-108, congressional (RNC). April regulation, 11 CFR 110.7(a)(4) (1981), provides President "through agent, including subordinate committees." basis regulatory authority, entered into agreement specifying (DSCC) campaigns. 1978, purposes.2 Complaints challenging practice dismissing these complaints, twice ruled unanimous votes arrangements forbidden re Committee, Matter Review (MUR) 780 (Jan. 19, 1979); MUR 820 (June 17, 1979). 1980, again May DSCC did challenge contemporaneous under RNC latter's 441a(d). considering report General Counsel, unanimously 4 petitioned review Columbia pursuant 437g(a)(8).3 That court Commission's discretion Comm'n, No. 80-1903 (DC Aug. 28, 1980) (reprinted App. Pet. Cert. B4). appeal, Circuit leave intervene judgment after language precludes" 383, 782. We petitions certiorari NRSC, 450 964, 101 1479, 67 612 now reverse Appeals. II 5 first addressed what extent should defer U.S.App.D.C., 377, F.2d, 776, discussion conclusion little no deference due pointless if plain well statutory revealed history. put administering entitled deference, NLRB Bell Aerospace Co.,, 416 267, 275, 94 1757, 1762, 40 134 (1974); Udall Tallman, 380 1, 16, 85 792, 801, 13 616 (1965), but courts final authorities issues construction. They must reject administrative constructions statute, reached adjudication rule-making, mandate frustrate policy sought implement. SEC Sloan, 436 103, 118, 98 1702, 1711, 56 148 (1978); FMC Seatrain Lines, Inc., 411 726, 745-746, 93 1773, 1784-1785, 36 620 (1973); Volkswagenwerk FMC, 390 261, 272, 88 929, 935, 19 1090 (1968); Brown, 278, 291, 980, 988, 839 (1965). Accordingly, crucial outset correctly construed For reasons follow, disagree As understand history, follows: 6 "The party, 7 State committee, office who affiliated exceeds— 8 "(A) case 9 Senator, Representative from only one Representative, greater of— 10 "(i) cents multiplied voting age population (as certified subsection (e) section); 12 "(ii) $20,000; "(B) 14 Delegate, Resident Commissioner other State, $10,000." It evident terms many words forbid agents purposes. This much common ground. Appeals, held because permits campaigns parties, latter, neither committee4 nor arrangement "by special named entity transferred another." 380, 779. Obviously, right. But, nature things, through employees agents, recognized, nothing To grounds spenders all regardless identity agency.5 demands choices available severely restricted. 15 If empowers exercise spending then could legally enter relationships committees. Yet, both have regularly done so, Indeed, accepts 110.7 (1981),6 valid interprets regulation existed parties' Committees.7 Moreover, required law,8 Congress, expressed disapproval. 16 Despite indication look unfavorably upon sharing reads disapproval Congress' failure explicitly provide bolster argument, points 441a(h),9 directly committees, Committees, candidate. accepted, underline additional answer question designating purpose.10 17 Neither refers defeat Brock Amendment, exempted Act's limits.11 381, 780. But rejection proposal right necessarily affect capacity perform functions. insofar intent reflected adopt proposed amendment, contrary—and indeed stronger—inference can found 96th amendment prohibited movement party.12 18 clear enough us without saying more case. require direct action rather than defensibly arrive kind forbidden. also agency. DSCC's law permissible instead disregard agency's proceed construe based best serve III whatsoever. acknowledging often appropriately governing refused accord here perceived lack reasoned explanation decision. agree thoroughness, validity, consistency reasoning factors bear ruling. See Adamo Wrecking Co. States, 434 287, n.5, 566, 573, 54 538 Skidmore Swift & Co., 323 134, 140, 65 161, 164, 89 L.Ed. 124 (1944). agree, failed merit 20 Initially, note precisely type presumptively afforded. "primary substantial responsibility enforcing Act," Buckley Valeo, 424 109, 96 612, 677, 46 659 (1976), providing "extensive rulemaking adjudicative powers." Id., 110, S.Ct., 678. "formulate respect administration 437d(a)(9), "sole discretionary power" determine instance civil violation occurred. U.S., 112, n.153, 679. inherently bipartisan three six members 437c(a)(1), decide dynamics politics, pressure impending election. reasons, wisely provided dismissal "contrary 437g(a)(8). 21 before clear. Since consistently adhered forbidding intraparty separate occasions, votes, rejected claim. each occasion followed recommendation Counsel. his report,13 Counsel emphasized absence specific prohibition arrangements, relied 441a(a)(4),14 unlimited party. second report,15 rejecting earlier arguments, drew approving similar level committees.16 third report,17 case, added analysis reviewed took fact had recently amended knowledge let stand. Unlike find differences emphasis reports significance. All reach conclusion, none rejects arguments others.18 upheld agreements; luxury number sound base opinions detract interpretations.19 Hence, determining law," task interpret thought narrower court. Train Natural Resources Defense Council, 421 60, 75, 95 1470, 43 731 (1975); Zenith Radio Corp. 437 443, 450, 2441, 2445, 57 337 (1978). satisfy reasonable even reading initially arisen judicial proceeding. Ibid.; 801; Unemployment Compensation Comm'n Aragan, 329 143, 153, 245, 250, 91 136 (1946). standard, think 22 said, since two committees—the committees—to either account others. opposite makes equal sense: having written precisely, otherwise, prohibited. acceptable 441a(a)(4). There applies part organization.20 provision, using money transfers, agreement, write check spent agreement. being dissent below difference "purely form, substance." 386, 785. 24 Money presumably decided. Agency comparison, might allow this, unlike 44771a(a)(4) reduced "legal shells." overlooks easily insist utilized manner. Conversely, retain share control over how exercised writing conditions More fundamentally, obligated place. delegation option, requirement, option resting entirely 25 Finally, recognized primary interest served prevention corruption appearance spawned real imagined coercive influence large financial candidates' positions actions elected 25, 637. been suggested basic compromised limitations apply force exercises transfers party's single dollar. 26 fits scheme assuring parties will continue important role elections.21 transform objective stimulating level, concerning supports view.22 preserving differentiate branches unit. hardly unreasonable suppose fully capable structuring achieve greatest possible return. benefit fundraising, media expertise, economies scale. turn, effective resources encourage loyalty responsiveness very posture cases betrays weakness respondent's argument—an argument that, bottom, features great American insisting rival requires assistance discovering enactment operates benefit. Thus, issue, clearly enunciated effect, indeed, countervailing existence mechanism whose presence difficult reconcile urged prevent finding determination Therefore, 28 Reversed. 29 STEVENS, concurring. 30 presented 441 441a(d)(1). 441a(d)(1) "the committee," candidate's subject defined limitations. party,"1 "a committee,"2 31 is, "political committee" term statute.3 441a(a)(2)(A) multicandidate exceed $5,000.4 provides, "amounts totaling contributed nomination election, during year he candidate, . ." No Committees.5 However, 441a(a)(7)(B)(i) "expenditures person cooperation, consultation, concert, with, request suggestion of, shall considered contribution candidate." 32 way said "in concert" exceeded $17,500. record discloses several instances I record, demonstrate concert candidates. simply silent point. 33 therefore, if, matter law, incapable words, unless deemed expends funds. appear me almost automatically amounts largely controlled they serve. seem incongruous hold treated lawful committee. 34 concur relationship violate join caveat am sure "otherwise impermissible," ante, n.1. assume, arguendo, petitioners absolutely burden justify case.6 Expenditures known "coordinated" monetary Record, p. (Nov. 1980). "independent" has, C.F.R. 110.7(B)(4) indicated fall prohibition. Brief 80-2074 (CADC), n. ("[p]arty independent expenditures"); ("NRSC committee"). admits: "Absent whatsoever Congressional candidates." 5. 1978 elections, total $2,770,995 combined Jt.App. 105. "[a]ny aggrieved" petition "may declare action, act, law" order conform court's declaration. RNC, "national 431(14) ed., Supp.IV): organization responsible day-to-day operation level." Appeals' misleading characterize ones "agency" raised spent. inherent dispositive deciding infra, 41. infra. 110.7(a)(1) allows [to] party," "an States," 441a(d)(2). These goes significance demonstrates specified statute. brief stated "does Committee." Appellant 20, 16. prescribing rule transmit accompanying statement House. disapproves days, rule. 438(d). "Republican combination committees" "not $17,500" By terms, restrict During 1974 debates, Senator 120 Cong.Rec. 9549-9551 (1974). adopted itself five days later. 10062-10064. 113 H.R. 11315 "movement funds" (including party) to, office." 11315, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. consideration bill, 7872-7880 seen various comments attacking bill. Stockman saw "fundamental assault continued meaningful our parties." 7875. Mikva "deeply regret[ted] fit change financing." 7876. First Counsel's Report, 1978). §§ 441a(a)(1) (2) "do district, thereof) party." supra n.6. 1234 (July assertion disavowed relevance (1981) 378, 777, belied incorporation 939, 35. following customary practice, announcing "depriv[e] deferential decision." 777. previously sufficient complaint. Hampton Fed.Elec.Camp.Fin.Guide (CCH) ¶ 9036, pp. 50, 439-50, 440 1977), aff'd, 77-1546 (CADC July 21, public simultaneously advice matter. Even express statement, sufficiently staff action. 441a(a)(4) district applicability At point, address reason. 382, 781 (the "issue joined court"). "some doubt" encompasses Surely doubt minimal light broad scope language, identifiable respective see 9552 (1974) (remarks Sen. Baker), include 441a(a)(1)-(2), serves exception. H.R.Conf.Rep.No.94-1057, 58 (1976); U.S.Code Cong. Admin.News 929 ("the 'political established maintained party' includes Committees"). A "established maintained" squarely ability escape limitation prescribed n.1, supra. S.Rep.No.93-689, (1974), reprinted Legislative History Amendments 1974, 103 (1977). remembered time contemplated funding 101, S. 3044, 93d Sess., 71-78 context, statements about need preserve see, e. g., 34372 Cannon); id., 35136 Rep. Frenzel), properly read expressing concern function finance vis-a-vis level. allowing pooling funds, increase "to conduct party-wide efforts." supra, 8, 104. defines which, virtue bylaws Commission." Supp.IV). 431(15) "State 431(4) as— club, association, group persons receives aggregating excess $1,000 calendar year. provides: "No contributions— aggregate, $5,000." 441a(a)(2)(A). carefully distinguishes "contributions" "expenditures." 431(8) (defining "contribution"); 431(9) "expenditure"). easier begun presentations appropriate relevant provisions unstated assumption obvious.

Category: 2