Court Opinion

ID: 9475078
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 05:16:58.690253+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:44:30.154170
License: Public Domain

J. SKELLY WRIGHT, Senior Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I agree that this case should be held in abeyance pending the Federal Election Commission’s (FEC) interpretation of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). I write separately, however, to note two issues of special concern.
First, in deciding the scope of the FECA ban on commercial exploitation, the FEC should remain cognizant of the important and troubling First Amendment implications raised by any construction of the statute that bars the use of the information at issue in this case by organizations such as Legi-Tech.
Second, I am troubled by the implication that the National Republican Campaign Committee (NRCC) may pursue its copyright remedies at the same time it pursues its administrative remedies under FECA. In crafting the requirements for adminis*195trative review of alleged violations of FECA, Congress might well have thought that the newly-created scheme would be the exclusive remedial scheme with which to enforce the strictures of. FECA. See 2 U.S.C. § 437d(e). If we find that the NRCC may nonetheless pursue its copyright claims in federal court regardless of its administrative remedies, we would have, effectively created a private enforcement scheme. Whether Congress intended to permit such private enforcement seems doubtful in light of the explicit limitations on liability imposed by the Act. See id. § 437g(a)(6)(A) (civil penalty limited to $5,000 or the amount of the contribution or expenditure involved in the violation); id § 437g(a)(6)(C) (civil penalty for willful violations limited to $10,000 or 200% of the amount of the contribution or expenditure involved in the violation).
This issue, however, need not be confronted by the court at this point. Should the Commission conclude that appellee’s use of the lists is not barred by the FECA commercial exploitation prohibition, the court need not reach the issue whether the FEC enforcement scheme is exclusive. At that point, “NRCC’s copyright action must fail [because] Legi-Tech’s use of FEC reports is authorized by FECA.” Opinion for the court at 6 (footnote omitted). The issue on the merits would then be clear, allowing this court to pretermit the more difficult jurisdictional question. See Secretary of the Navy v. Avrech, 418 U.S. 676, 678, 94 S.Ct. 3039, 3040, 41 L.Ed.2d 1033 (1974) (per curiam); Doe v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 753 F.2d 1092, 1101 (D.C.Cir.1985).
Thus, because I agree that the case should be held in abeyance pending the Commission’s adjudication of . appellant’s administrative complaint, I concur in Judge Starr’s opinion for the court.