Van Hollen v. Federal Election Commission
851 F. Supp. 2d 69
D.D.C.2012Background
- Van Hollen sues the FEC under the APA challenging 11 C.F.R. §104.20(c)(9) on disclosure for electioneering communications.
- Regulation followed WRTL and broadened beyond MCFL corporations to all “persons” under BCRA §434(f)(2).
- BCRA requires disclosure of all contributors who gave $1,000+ for electioneering, and defines “person” to include corporations and labor unions.
- FEC proposed and enacted new rule in 2007 to tailor disclosure due to concerns about burden and ambiguity after WRTL; it argued the rule narrowed the scope to donors for the purpose of electioneering.
- Plaintiff seeks summary judgment asserting the statute is unambiguous and that the FEC lacked authority to narrow the disclosure requirements via regulation; intervenors ACLU? (HLF and CFIF) seek to participate; Court proceeds under Chevron analysis.
- Court grants plaintiff’s summary judgment motion and denies the FEC’s cross-motion; interventions’ motions to dismiss/cross-motions denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the FEC reg 104.20(c)(9) exceeds statutory authority | Van Hollen argues statute unambiguous; agency cannot narrow via regulation | FEC contends ambiguity after WRTL and need to tailor disclosure | Regulation invalid; statutory language unambiguous; agency cannot narrow it under Chevron step one. |
| Chevron step-one: does Congress speak directly to the issue | Statute plainly requires disclosure of all contributors; no delegation to tailor | WRTL changed circumstances creating ambiguity needing regulatory fill | Statute plain; no gap; do not defer to agency under Chevron step one. |
| Whether plaintiff has standing to challenge the rule | Akins/Shays informational standing; injury from lack of disclosure | Standing contested but not pursued by FEC | Plaintiff has informational standing; court need not reach competitor standing. |
| Whether the regulation is arbitrary or contrary to BCRA’s disclosure purpose | Rule contravenes Congress’s mandate to disclose “all contributors” | Rule tailored to reduce burden while preserving essential disclosure | Unambiguous text controls; regulation contrary to congressional disclosure purpose. |
Key Cases Cited
- McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93 (U.S. 2003) (upheld corporate and union prohibition on electioneering expenditures (pre-WRTL))
- FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., 551 U.S. 449 (U.S. 2007) (held prohibition unconstitutional as applied to certain electioneering ads)
- Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S. Ct. 876 (U.S. 2010) (overruled corporate/union ban; upheld disclosure regime)
- Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1976) (earlier disclosure rationale; basis for transparency goals)
- Akins v. FEC, 524 U.S. 11 (U.S. 1998) (informational standing for voters challenging disclosure)
- Shays v. FEC (Shays III), 528 F.3d 914 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (standing for challenge to FEC disclosures)