Van Hollen v. Federal Election Commission
421 U.S. App. D.C. 36
| D.C. Cir. | 2016Background
- BCRA (2002) created disclosure rules for "electioneering communications" and banned corporations/unions from funding them from general treasuries; FEC promulgated related rules in 2003.
- After the Supreme Court in Wisconsin Right to Life and later Citizens United loosened limits on corporate/union speech, the FEC reopened its rules to address how disclosure should apply to these now-permitted speakers.
- In 2007 the FEC adopted a middle-ground rule requiring corporations and labor organizations to disclose only donations of $1,000+ that were “made for the purpose of furthering electioneering communications” (the purpose requirement).
- Rep. Christopher Van Hollen sued, arguing the purpose requirement conflicts with BCRA’s disclosure text and that the FEC’s rule was arbitrary and capricious; district court struck the rule down.
- A D.C. Circuit panel previously held BCRA ambiguous and that the FEC’s interpretation survived Chevron Step One but remanded to resolve Chevron Step Two and APA review; on remand the district court invalidated the rule again.
- This appeal reviews whether the FEC’s purpose requirement is a permissible construction of BCRA (Chevron Step Two) and whether it survives arbitrary-and-capricious review under State Farm; the court reverses the district court and upholds the rule.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FEC’s "purpose" requirement is a permissible construction of BCRA (Chevron Step Two) | Van Hollen: Statute requires disclosure of "all contributors" with no purpose qualifier; omission of a purpose clause in §30104(f) precludes FEC adding one. | FEC: BCRA is ambiguous; FECA’s definition of "contribution" and parallel express-advocacy provision support a purpose requirement; agency may fill gaps. | Court: BCRA ambiguous; FEC’s purpose requirement is a reasonable construction and entitled to deference. |
| Whether the FEC’s rule is arbitrary and capricious under the APA/State Farm | Van Hollen: FEC failed to justify revising 2003 rule; offered inadequate explanation and no evidentiary support for key claims. | FEC: Changed circumstances after Wisconsin Right to Life justified reconsideration; provided three rationales (support, burden, privacy). | Court: FEC adequately explained its decision; change justified by new landscape; rule not arbitrary or capricious. |
| Whether the FEC could revisit its 2003 rule after Wisconsin Right to Life | Van Hollen: Wisconsin Right to Life did not disturb disclosure provisions; so revising rule was unreasonable. | FEC: The decision changed which speakers fall under BCRA, creating new implementation questions requiring updated rules. | Court: Reconsideration was reasonable; constitutional and factual developments warranted regulatory update. |
| Whether FEC’s explanations (support, burden, privacy) suffice | Van Hollen: Explanations speculative and lacking concrete evidence; alternatives were available. | FEC: Rationales grounded in common sense, record comments, and constitutional privacy concerns; considered alternatives and burdens. | Court: Explanations meet State Farm’s deferential standard; rational connection between facts and policy choice exists. |
Key Cases Cited
- Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (upheld disclosure provisions; limited regulation to express advocacy)
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837 (framework for judicial deference to reasonable agency statutory interpretations)
- Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., 551 U.S. 449 (narrowed when corporations/unions can be restricted; limited governmental power to ban electioneering communications)
- McConnell v. Federal Election Comm'n, 540 U.S. 93 (upheld BCRA disclosure and corporate/union prohibitions pre-Wisconsin Right to Life)
- Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm'n, 558 U.S. 310 (struck down corporate/union ban on independent political expenditures)
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (standard for arbitrary-and-capricious review under the APA)
- AFL-CIO v. Federal Election Comm'n, 333 F.3d 168 (recognition of FEC's unique role regulating core First Amendment activity)
- National Cable & Telecommunications Ass'n v. Brand X Internet Servs., 545 U.S. 967 (agency interpretations may change in light of new legal rulings)