Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

corporationcivil penalty
corporationnonprofitcivil penalty

Related Cases

Kamilewicz v. Bank of Boston Corp., 92 F.3d 506
View Case »
Frett v. State Farm Employee Workers’ Compensation, 309 Ga. 44, 844 S.E.2d 749
View Case »
Farese v. Scherer, 342 F.3d 1223, 16 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 1000
View Case »
Whiting v. Lacara, 187 F.3d 317
View Case »
Derechin v. State University of New York, 963 F.2d 513, 58 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 41,457, 60 USLW 2687, 22 Fed.R.Serv.3d 685, 75 Ed. Law Rep. 132
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Federal Election Com’n v. Christian Coalition, 52 F.Supp.2d 45

Facts

The Christian Coalition, a corporation founded by Marion G. 'Pat' Robertson, was accused by the FEC of violating campaign finance laws during the congressional elections of 1990, 1992, and 1994, as well as the presidential election in 1992. The FEC claimed that the Coalition used general treasury funds for express advocacy and coordinated expenditures that violated the FECA. The Coalition argued that its activities were permissible under the law, leading to a complex legal dispute over the definitions of express advocacy and in-kind contributions.

The Coalition's Articles of Incorporation were signed on October 2, 1989. Robertson is the corporation's Chairman of the Board and former President. The Coalition is a nonprofit, non-stock corporation financed by voluntary contributions obtained through fund raising and telemarketing activities.

Issue

The main legal issues were whether the Coalition's communications constituted express advocacy under the FECA and whether its expenditures were illegal coordinated contributions.

The first issue is one of first impression in this Circuit and has created a moderate division of opinion among other Circuits. The question presented is whether “express advocacy” by corporations and labor organizations is limited to communications that use specified phrases, such as “vote for Smith” or “support Robinson,” or whether a more substantive inquiry into the clearly intended effect of a communication is permissible.

Rule

Federal campaign finance law prohibits corporations from using general treasury funds for contributions to candidates but allows independent expenditures that do not expressly advocate for or against a candidate. The 'express advocacy' test limits the application of restrictions to communications that explicitly advocate the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate.

Federal campaign finance law prohibits corporations and labor unions from using general treasury funds to make contributions —in cash or in kind—to a candidate for federal office. But corporations and unions can make independent expenditures that are related to a federal election campaign so long as those expenditures are not for communications that expressly advocate the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate for federal office.

Analysis

The court analyzed the Coalition's communications and determined that some, such as Ralph Reed's speech and the 'Reclaim America' mailing, contained elements of express advocacy that violated the FECA. However, other activities, like the production of voter guides, did not meet the threshold for express advocacy as defined by the law. The court emphasized the need for a substantive inquiry into the intent and effect of the communications.

The FEC contends that the Coalition violated § 441b by using general treasury funds to finance communications that expressly advocated the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate on three occasions: (1) a 1992 speech made by the Coalition's Executive Director Ralph Reed in Montana; (2) a 1994 national mailing entitled “Reclaim America”; and (3) a 1994 mailing by the Coalition's Georgia affiliate.

Conclusion

The court concluded that the FEC was entitled to a civil penalty for certain violations, including express advocacy related to Newt Gingrich's reelection and the provision of a mailing list to Oliver North's campaign. However, the court denied the FEC's request for injunctive relief.

The FEC is entitled to a civil penalty for the Coalition's express advocacy of House Speaker Newt Gingrich's reelection in 1994 and for the Coalition having provided the senatorial campaign of Oliver North with a valuable mailing list.

Who won?

The FEC prevailed in part, as the court found that the Coalition had violated certain provisions of the FECA, particularly regarding express advocacy. The court's reasoning was based on the Coalition's use of general treasury funds for communications that explicitly advocated for specific candidates.

The FEC is entitled to a civil penalty for the Coalition's express advocacy of House Speaker Newt Gingrich's reelection in 1994 and for the Coalition having provided the senatorial campaign of Oliver North with a valuable mailing list.

You must be