Real Truth About Obama, Inc. v. Federal Election Commission
796 F. Supp. 2d 736
E.D. Va.2011Background
- RTAO is a Virginia nonprofit classified as a political organization seeking to avoid FECA political committee status.
- RTAO challenged FECA regs 11 C.F.R. §§ 100.22(b), 100.57, 114.15 and FEC’s case-by-case enforcement policy.
- Ads Change and Survivor contemplated to run before/around the 2008 election; communications and fundraising plans described.
- RTAO claimed § 100.22(b) is vague/overbroad and that the policy misclassifies organizations as political committees.
- Supreme Court decision in Citizens United prompted remand; court later held RTAO’s preliminary relief claims moot but addressed permanent-relief challenges.
- Court granted summary judgment for FEC and DOJ, upholding § 100.22(b) and the political-committee-status policy as applied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 100.22(b) is vague/overbroad | RTAO argues overbreadth/vagueness | Regulation aligns with Wisconsin Right to Life test | Statute upheld; not unconstitutionally vague/overbroad |
| Whether the FEC policy for political-committee status is constitutional | Case-by-case policy harms notice and speech | Multi-factor approach consistent with precedent | Policy constitutional as applied to RTAO |
| RTAO's standing to challenge the political-committee-status policy | Intention to air ads creates threat of enforcement | Lacks standing absent clear current injury | RTAO has standing to challenge the policy |
| Whether preliminary-relief claims are moot | Urgent need to prevent enforcement before elections | Election period passed; moot | Preliminary-relief claims moot; permanent relief addressed |
| Whether permanent-relief claims are moot | Likely to suffer ongoing injury from regulatory regime | Moot only if no reasonable expectation of repetition | Permanent-relief claims not moot; challenged is viable |
Key Cases Cited
- Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1976) (distinguishes strict vs. intermediate scrutiny for different FECA provisions)
- Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. v. FEC, 551 U.S. 449 (U.S. 2007) (applause-to-vote test; governs express advocacy standard)
- Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S. Ct. 876 (U.S. 2010) (struck down § 441b; upheld disclosure-based regime under exacting scrutiny)
- SpeechNow.org v. FEC, 599 F.3d 686 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (multifactor disclosure regime; political committees with independent expenditures)
- Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Inc. v. FEC, 479 U.S. 238 (U.S. 1986) (major-purpose and expenditure considerations for political-committee status)
- North Carolina Right to Life Comm. Fund for Independent Political Expenditures v. Leake, 525 F.3d 274 (4th Cir. 2008) (contextual-factor approach; cautions on broad regulatory reach)