Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, sitting en banc · 2010 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawFirst AmendmentCampaign Financeindependent expenditurespolitical committeecontribution limitsdisclosurereporting requirements

Facts

SpeechNow is an unincorporated nonprofit association organized under § 527 whose purpose is to expressly advocate for or against federal candidates based on their support for First Amendment rights. It planned to raise money solely from individuals and to engage exclusively in independent expenditures, not coordinated spending. Several plaintiffs wished to contribute amounts exceeding FECA's political-committee contribution limits, including one proposed donation of $110,000, and SpeechNow asserted that it could not effectively operate if those limits applied. The FEC's draft advisory opinion stated that SpeechNow would qualify as a political committee and thus would be subject both to contribution caps and to FECA's organizational and reporting requirements.

Issue

Whether FECA's limits on contributions to political committees may constitutionally be applied to donations made to SpeechNow, an organization that makes only independent expenditures. Whether FECA may also constitutionally require SpeechNow to register and comply with the organizational, administrative, and reporting requirements applicable to political committees, including before it has made expenditures once it has received more than $1,000.

Rule

The only sufficiently important interest that can justify contribution limits is preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption. Because independent expenditures do not, as a matter of law, give rise to quid pro quo corruption or its appearance, the government has no anti-corruption interest in limiting contributions to an independent-expenditure-only organization. By contrast, disclosure and reporting requirements are valid if they bear a substantial relation to a sufficiently important governmental interest, including informing the electorate and deterring or exposing violations of other campaign-finance restrictions.

🔒

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.

In Phoenix, a nonprofit association called Desert Lantern Action plans to fund only television and online ads expressly urging voters to defeat or elect identified federal candidates. The group bars coordination with any candidate, campaign, or political party, and all of its money comes from individual donors, including Nora Patel, who wants to give $90,000.

If federal law caps Nora's donation to Desert Lantern Action solely because the group is treated as a political committee, how should a court rule?

Explanation. The majority held that the only sufficiently important interest supporting contribution limits is preventing corruption or its appearance, understood as quid pro quo corruption. Because independent expenditures are uncoordinated and do not give rise to quid pro quo corruption or its appearance as a matter of law, contributions to an independent-expenditure-only group likewise cannot be limited on that basis.