Wendy Wagner v. Federal Election Commission, 793 F.3d 1

Congress barred government contractors from contributing to federal candidates, parties, or traditional PACs during contract negotiation and performance under 52 U.S.C. § 30119(a)(1).
Plaintiffs Brown, Miller, and Wagner challenged the statute as applied to individual contractors, asserting First Amendment and Fifth Amendment equal protection violations; Miller's contract remained active, while Brown and Wagner’ contracts were moot.
District court granted summary judgment for the FEC; the D.C. Cir. later held the appeal limited to contractor contributions to candidates or parties due to mootness and standing.
The court analyzes whether the contractor contribution ban is a permissible, narrowly drawn restriction on political speech and association, balancing anti-corruption interests with free speech rights.
The majority traces § 30119’s historical lineage from 19th‑ and 20th‑century pay-to-play fears and Hatch Act-era reforms, reinforcing its aim to protect merit-based administration and prevent corruption.
Two main government interests are advanced: preventing quid pro quo corruption/appearance and protecting merit-based public administration, both of which the court finds sufficiently important and supported by evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 30119 survives the closely drawn standard	Beaumont/ Buckley require strict scrutiny; ban too broad.	Closely drawn standard applies; contributes infringement is narrowly tailored.	§ 30119 passes closely drawn scrutiny.
Whether the ban is overinclusive	Banning contributions to parties and PACs too broad.	Bans on contractor contributions are appropriate to prevent corruption and appearance.	Not fatally overinclusive; closely drawn to anti-corruption/merit concerns.
Whether § 30119 is underinclusive	Should cover corporate contractors’ affiliates, federal employees, and other beneficiaries.	Statute targets the most corruption-prone conduct; full universality not required.	Not underinclusive under the closely drawn standard.
Whether the equal protection challenge warrants strict scrutiny	Contributions are a fundamental right; classification unjustified.	Closely drawn First Amendment framework controls; equal protection inquiry mirrors First Amendment analysis.	Equal protection challenge rejected; no strict scrutiny applied.
Mootness/standing in light of evolving contracts	All plaintiffs’ claims should proceed regardless of mootness.	Some claims mooted by contract termination; only Miller’s claim remains live.	Wagner and Brown moot; Miller’s challenge remains live and properly before the court.

Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1976) (distinguishes contributions from expenditures and sets scrutiny framework)
FEC v. Beaumont, 539 U.S. 146 (U.S. 2003) (upheld contribution bans under closely drawn standard)
McCutcheon v. FEC, 134 S. Ct. 1434 (U.S. 2014) (reaffirms standard for contributions; limits may be sustained if closely drawn)
SpeechNow.org v. FEC, 599 F.3d 686 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (en banc; discusses standards for contribution restrictions)
Umbehr, 518 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1996) (government may defer to employer predictions of harm in speech cases)
Letter Carriers, 413 U.S. 548 (U.S. 1973) (merit-based administration and protection from political coercion)
NTEU, 513 U.S. 454 (U.S. 1995) (harnesses Pickering balancing for government employee speech)
McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93 (U.S. 2003) (upholds restrictions on political contributions in context of party/funding)
Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (U.S. 2010) (distinguishes contributions vs expenditures; discusses corporate speech)
Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar, 135 S. Ct. 1656 (S. Ct. 2015) (upholds restrictions with narrowly tailored speech limits)
Waze v. Curtis, 12 F.2d 824 (C.C.S.D.N.Y. 1882) (historical precedent on prohibition of political contributions by public servants)