Republican Party of Louisiana v. Federal Election Commission
219 F. Supp. 3d 86
| D.D.C. | 2016Background
- Plaintiffs: Louisiana Republican Party organizations (state party and local affiliates) seek to use “soft” (nonfederal) money for various activities that BCRA defines as federal election activity (FEA), including voter registration, GOTV, and independent communications referring to federal candidates.
- Statutory scheme: BCRA §323(b) bars state/local parties from using soft money for FEA and §323(c) bars using soft money to raise funds for FEA; BCRA also imposes reporting requirements for FEA financed with federal (hard) funds.
- Pre-enactment context: The FEC previously permitted broad soft-money usage, which Congress sought to curtail through BCRA to prevent circumvention of FECA’s source/amount limits and the appearance of corruption.
- Procedural posture: Plaintiffs brought a three-judge BCRA challenge (BCRA §403(a)). The FEC moved for summary judgment; court first addressed standing and then the merits (facial and as-applied First Amendment challenges).
- Injury and standing: The state party holds corporate (nonfederal) funds that BCRA prevents it from using for FEA; the court found that invalidating BCRA’s soft-money ban would permit use of those funds as they could have been used under the pre-BCRA FEC approach, so plaintiffs have standing to challenge §§323(b)–(c) and the reporting rule.
- Outcome preview: The court granted summary judgment for the FEC, concluding McConnell controls and forecloses both the facial and as-applied challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge §§323(b)/(c) and reporting rule | Plaintiffs say their inability to use corporate/nonfederal funds for FEA is a concrete, redressable injury | FEC says FECA preexisting source restrictions may independently bar such uses, so a BCRA three-judge court cannot redress injury | Plaintiffs have standing: BCRA added a new bar on soft-money use for FEA; invalidating it would let plaintiffs use corporate funds they possess |
| Facial challenge to §323(b) (soft-money ban on party use for FEA) | §323(b) should receive strict/exacting scrutiny as an expenditure restriction | FEC: McConnell treats §323(b) as a contribution restriction subject to less stringent ‘‘closely drawn to important interests’’ test | Rejected: McConnell controls; §323(b) is a permissible contribution regulation closely drawn to prevent corruption/appearance of corruption |
| As-applied challenge for independent FEA | Independent (non-coordinated) party FEA poses no quid pro quo corruption risk (relying on Citizens United rationale) | FEC: McConnell holds soft-money contributions to parties create corruption risk regardless of how funds are spent; independent nature of spending doesn’t remove the risk | Rejected: McConnell and RNC foreclose the argument; the relevant quid is the contribution to the party, which can create indebtedness irrespective of subsequent independent spending |
| Challenge to BCRA reporting requirements for FEA | Plaintiffs challenge reporting obligations as burdensome | FEC: disclosure is less burdensome and serves informational/anti-corruption interests | Rejected as to relief sought: reporting rules are constitutional and materially related to important interests in disclosure/informing electorate |
Key Cases Cited
- McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93 (upholding BCRA’s soft-money limits on parties as closely drawn to prevent corruption and its appearance)
- Republican Nat’l Comm. v. FEC, 698 F. Supp. 2d 150 (D.D.C. 2010) (three-judge court rejecting as-applied challenge to §323(b); affirmed by the Supreme Court)
- Republican Nat’l Comm. v. FEC, 561 U.S. 1040 (2010) (summary affirmance of the D.D.C. decision)
- Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (acknowledging independent expenditures pose different corruption risks and distinguishing soft-money party contributions)
- McCutcheon v. FEC, 572 U.S. 185 (2014) (plurality discussion of contribution limits but expressly did not overrule McConnell’s soft-money holding)
- SpeechNow.org v. FEC, 599 F.3d 686 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (discussing disclosure and the differences between contributions to independent-expenditure-only groups and contributions to political parties)
- Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) (distinction between contribution limits and expenditure limits in First Amendment analysis)