Carey v. Federal Election Commission
791 F. Supp. 2d 121
D.D.C.2011Background
- Carey and NDPAC seek to solicit and expend contributions for independent expenditures and direct funding of federal candidates/parties.
- They propose to keep two separate pools of funds by maintaining separate bank accounts for soft-money independent expenditures and hard-money contributions.
- Eustis, a private citizen, wishes to contribute beyond the statutory hard-money limit to NDPAC's independent expenditures.
- Plaintiffs move for a preliminary injunction to bar enforcement of 2 U.S.C. §§ 441a(a)(1)(C) and 441a(a)(3) as applied to NDPAC's independent expenditures.
- FEC opposes, arguing its interpretation aligns with Emily's List and related cases and, differently, with a broader anti-corruption rationale.
- Court grants a limited preliminary injunction allowing independent expenditures from soft-money funds so long as hard-money limits are observed and accounts remain segregated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are hard-money limits constitutional for independent expenditures by non-connected PACs? | NDPAC argues no hard-money limit applies to independent expenditures per Emily's List and Citizens United. | FEC contends hard-money limits apply to any contributions directed to candidates/parties, including hybrids. | Yes for independent expenditures; hard-money limits do not apply to soft-money expenditures. |
| Is segregation into two accounts a sufficient mechanism to avoid circumvention of limits? | Two accounts adequately separate soft-money expenditures from hard-money contributions per Emily's List. | Two accounts are insufficient; a separate committee with formal governance is required. | Two separate, properly managed accounts can satisfy the First Amendment concerns. |
| Does permitting unlimited soft-money independent expenditures violate anti-corruption interests? | Independent expenditures should be unlimited because they are not corrupting under current precedent. | Without limits, there could be circumvention and corruption concerns. | Court finds no anti-corruption rationale to bar independent expenditures; inference of harm is outweighed by speech protections. |
Key Cases Cited
- Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S. Ct. 876 (2010) (independent expenditures not subject to contribution limits; speech rights protected)
- Emily's List v. FEC, 581 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (hybrid nonprofits may spend soft money on independent expenditures but keep hard-money accounts)
- SpeechNow.org v. FEC, 599 F.3d 686 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (limits on independent expenditures unconstitutional; distinction between expenditures and contributions)
- Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1976) (speech protections; limits on expenditures vs. contributions framework)
- FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., 551 U.S. 449 (U.S. 2007) (anti-circumvention principles in campaign finance)
- McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93 (U.S. 2003) (campaign finance precedent on regulation and anti-corruption interests)