Federal Election Commission v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Inc.

Supreme Court of the United States · 1986 · Corporations

Corporationscorporate political speechindependent expendituresexpress advocacyFirst Amendmentnonprofit corporationseparate segregated fundpolitical committee

Facts

MCFL was a nonprofit, nonstock Massachusetts corporation formed to promote pro-life political ideas; it did not accept contributions from business corporations or unions, and it was funded by voluntary donations and small fundraising activities. Before the 1978 primary, MCFL spent $9,812.76 from its general treasury to print and distribute over 100,000 copies of a "Special Edition" urging readers to "VOTE PRO-LIFE" and identifying specific candidates who matched MCFL's views. The publication used exhortational language, highlighted certain candidates with photographs, and was distributed far beyond MCFL's regular newsletter audience. MCFL did not finance the publication through a separate segregated fund.

Issue

Whether MCFL's treasury-funded "Special Edition" was an "expenditure" covered by § 441b, including whether it constituted express advocacy and fell outside the press exemption, and if so, whether applying § 441b's ban on such independent expenditures to MCFL was constitutional under the First Amendment.

Rule

For purposes of § 441b, a prohibited independent expenditure must constitute express advocacy of the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate. Section 441b may not constitutionally be applied to a corporation that is formed to promote political ideas and cannot engage in business activities, has no shareholders or other persons with a claim on its assets or earnings, and was not established by a business corporation or labor union and does not accept contributions from such entities.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Lakeview Ethics Forum, a nonprofit corporation in Ohio, mails a one-page flyer before a congressional primary to 30,000 voters in Columbus. The flyer says, "Protect clean government—vote for Elena Ruiz on Tuesday," and includes Ruiz's photo and district number.

Under the majority's approach, is the flyer within the category of communications covered by § 441b's expenditure prohibition?

Explanation. The majority held that § 441b reaches independent spending only when the communication constitutes express advocacy of the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate. Language such as "vote for" coupled with identification of the candidate satisfies that standard. The statute is not limited to direct payments to candidates or parties. (Derived from Federal Election Commission v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Inc. (n.d.).)