Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Wash. v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 299 F. Supp. 3d 83

Background

CREW challenged American Action Network (AAN), a 501(c)(4), alleging its ~ $18M in TV ads around the 2010 midterms made it an unregistered "political committee" under FECA because it spent for the purpose of influencing federal elections.
FECA defines a "political committee" by spending/contributions over $1,000 "for the purpose of influencing" federal elections; Buckley added a judicial "major purpose" (nomination/election) limitation.
Congress later enacted BCRA, creating the statutory category "electioneering communications" (ads aired near elections, naming a candidate, targeted to the relevant electorate) and imposing disclosure obligations for those ads.
The FEC initially dismissed CREW's complaint 3–3, relying on a categorical distinction between express advocacy and issue advocacy; this Court remanded, finding that approach inconsistent with the disclosure context.
On remand the FEC again dismissed 3–3, applying an ad-by-ad multifactor test and counting only four electioneering ads (plus express advocacy) toward AAN’s "major purpose" calculation; CREW sued again.
The district court held that BCRA and Supreme Court precedent (McConnell, Citizens United) require a presumption that electioneering communications indicate an election-related major purpose, and that the FEC failed to apply that presumption, so the dismissal was contrary to law.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the FEC's dismissal was "contrary to law" because it excluded most electioneering communications from the major-purpose calculation	CREW: BCRA and Supreme Court precedent treat electioneering communications as presumptively intended to affect election results; FEC must count such spending when assessing political-committee status	FEC: May evaluate ad content case-by-case; WRTL II permits focusing on indicia of express advocacy and content/context to exclude ads lacking electoral purpose	Held: Court ruled for CREW — FEC must presumptively treat spending on electioneering communications as indicating a purpose to nominate/elect; FEC’s approach failed to give effect to Congress’s intent and was contrary to law
Whether the FEC's multifactor, content-focused test comported with FECA/BCRA and appellate precedent	CREW: The test effectively resurrects a forbidden express-vs-issue advocacy bright line and ignores BCRA’s presumption; it was arbitrary and cherry-picked facts	FEC: The multifactor ad-by-ad inquiry complies with remand instructions and Supreme Court guidance (WRTL II) permitting content analysis	Held: Court found the multifactor test legally flawed because it started from the ad text without the required presumption arising from the statutory electioneering-communication definition
Appropriate remedy for the legal error	CREW: Remand directing FEC to apply the correct presumption and reassess AAN’s status	FEC: Its dismissal complied with this Court’s prior remand and was reasonable; if error, it is harmless	Held: Court granted summary judgment to CREW and remanded to FEC to conform with the ruling within 30 days (declining to find harmless error)

Key Cases Cited

Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (major-purpose limitation on "political committee")
McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93 (upholding BCRA disclosure provisions; electioneering communications aimed to affect elections)
Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (disclosure context rejects express/issue advocacy distinction)
FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., 551 U.S. 449 (WRTL II) (private-party speech ban context; analysis of functional equivalent of express advocacy)
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837 (agency deference framework)
In re Sealed Case, 223 F.3d 775 (statement of reasons by controlling FEC Commissioners constitutes agency action)
NRSC v. FEC, 966 F.2d 1471 (controlling-group principle for FEC decisions)
Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm, 463 U.S. 29 (arbitrary-and-capricious review standard)