Campaign Legal Center v. FEC
106 F.4th 1175
D.C. Cir.2024Background
- The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) requires disclosure and limits on coordinated political expenditures by individuals and organizations to promote electoral transparency and combat corruption.
- The Federal Election Commission (FEC) has an “internet exemption” that allows unpaid internet communications coordinated with campaigns to avoid reporting and contribution limitations.
- In the 2016 election, the PAC Correct the Record openly coordinated millions in expenditures with Hillary Clinton’s campaign, claiming all activities fell under the internet exemption, thereby avoiding disclosure as in-kind contributions.
- Watchdog group Campaign Legal Center filed a complaint alleging that most of Correct the Record’s spending was not actually exempt and was systematically coordinated.
- The FEC's General Counsel recommended investigating, but the Commission deadlocked (2-2), with the controlling commissioners adopting an expansive interpretation of the internet exemption and declining to investigate.
- The district court found the FEC’s dismissal contrary to law; the case proceeded to the D.C. Circuit on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of the internet exemption | Only spending directly related to unpaid internet posts is exempt. | Any expenditure that contributes in any way to an unpaid internet post is exempt. | Exemption cannot be read so broadly; tangential expenditures are not exempt. |
| Failure to investigate coordinated expenditures | Correct the Record’s public statements showed intent to coordinate all activities with the Clinton campaign. | Coordination must be shown transaction-by-transaction; general intent not enough. | FEC ignored plausible evidence of wholesale coordination; failure to investigate was arbitrary and capricious. |
| Mootness due to district court remand and private suit | FEC lost enforcement authority by failing to act in 30-day remand after district court decision. | FEC retains right to appeal, and remand is stayed during appeal; not moot. | Not moot; FEC retains an interest until appeal is finally resolved. |
| Standing to seek non-disclosure violations (source/contribution limits) | Challenge is to broad dismissal; standing for all counts. | Campaign Legal Center lacks standing for counts other than disclosure. | No need to reach standing for non-disclosure counts; remand only requires Commission to address internet exemption and coordination. |
Key Cases Cited
- Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) (Defines "contributions" broadly to prevent circumvention of campaign finance laws)
- FEC v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11 (1998) (Disclosure requirements enhance accountability and transparency in federal elections)
- FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Comm., 533 U.S. 431 (2001) (Coordinated expenditures are treated as contributions under FECA)
- McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93 (2003) (Discusses the importance of preventing circumvention by coordinated expenditures)
- Shays v. FEC, 414 F.3d 76 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (FEC lacks discretion to exempt coordinated communications from reporting requirements)
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983) (Agency decisions are arbitrary and capricious if they ignore plausible evidence)
- Common Cause v. FEC, 842 F.2d 436 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (When the FEC deadlocks and dismisses a complaint, controlling commissioners must explain their reasoning)