Previous 11 / 273 Next

Cite as: 540 U. S. 93 (2003) Syllabus a constitutionally mandated line between express advocacy and so-called issue advocacy, and that speakers have an inviolable First Amendment right to engage in the latter category of speech. However, a plain reading of Buckley and FederalElection Comm'n v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Inc., 479 U. S. 238 (MCFL), shows that the express advocacy restriction is a product of statutory interpretation, not a constitutional command. Both the concept of express advocacy and the class of magic words were born of an effort to avoid constitutional problems of vagueness and overbreadth in the statute before the Buckley Court. Consistent with the principle that a constitutional rule should never be formulated more broadly than required by the facts to which it is to be applied, Buckley and MCFL were specific to the statutory language before the Court and in no way drew a constitutional boundary that forever fixed the permissible scope of provisions regulating campaignrelated speech. The notion that the First Amendment erects a rigid barrier between express and issue advocacy also cannot be squared with this Court's longstanding recognition that the presence or absence of magic words cannot meaningfully distinguish electioneering speech from a true issue ad. Buckley's express advocacy line has not aided the legislative effort to combat real or apparent corruption, and Congress enacted BCRA to correct the flaws it found. Finally, because the components of new FECA § 304(f)(3)'s definition of "electioneering communication" are both easily understood and objectively determinable, the vagueness objection that persuaded the Buckley Court to limit FECA's reach to express advocacy is inapposite here. Pp. 189-194. (b) With regard to plaintiffs' other concerns about the use of the phrase "electioneering communication," the District Court correctly rejected their submission that new FECA §304 unnecessarily requires disclosure of the names of persons who contributed $1,000 or more to the individual or group paying for the communication, but erred in finding § 304(f)(5) invalid because it mandates disclosure of executory contracts for communications that have not yet aired. Because the important state interests identified in Buckley-providing the electorate with information, deterring actual corruption and avoiding its appearance, and gathering data necessary to enforce more substantive electioneering restrictions-apply in full to BCRA, Buckley amply supports application of FECA § 304's disclosure requirements to the entire range of "electioneering communications." Buckley also forecloses a facial attack on the new § 304 provision that requires disclosure of the names of persons who contribute $1,000 or more to segregated funds or spend more than $10,000 in a calendar year on electioneering communications. Under Buckley's standard of proof, the evidence here did not establish the requisite reasonable probability of harm to any plaintiff group or its mem-

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

McConnell v. Federal Election Commission

Judgment

Question Presented: Whether the two principal features of Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) — (1) the soft-money ban on national, state, and local political parties (Title I), and (2) the regulation of electioneering communications by corporations and unions, including disclosure requirements (Title II) — violated the First Amendment's protections of free speech and association. Subsidiary issues included whether BCRA exceeded Congress's Elections Clause authority, violated principles of federalism, violated equal protection by treating political parties differently from interest groups, and whether specific provisions (including the ban on contributions by minors, the "choice" provision requiring parties to choose between coordinated and independent expenditures, and various disclosure requirements) were constitutional.

Alleged Acts: In 2002, Congress enacted the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), the most significant campaign finance legislation since the 1974 FECA amendments. BCRA responded to three developments that Congress identified as undermining the campaign finance regulatory framework established by FECA and upheld in Buckley v. Valeo. First, political parties exploited a loophole by raising unlimited "soft money" (funds not subject to FECA's source, amount, or disclosure restrictions) for mixed-purpose activities — including get-out-the-vote drives, generic party advertising, and legislative advocacy ads mentioning federal candidates — so long as the ads did not "expressly advocate" a candidate's election or defeat. Second, corporations, unions, and outside groups ran broadcast advertisements that were specifically intended to influence federal elections but avoided FECA's restrictions by eschewing "magic words" of express advocacy (e.g., "vote for," "defeat"), instead purporting to discuss "issues" while clearly targeting candidates. The statute's principal features were Title I, which regulated soft money by banning national party committees from raising or spending non-federal funds (§323(a)), restricting state and local parties from using soft money for "federal election activity" (§323(b)), restricting solicitations by party committees on behalf of tax-exempt organizations (§323(d)), and limiting federal candidates' and officeholders' solicitation of soft money (§323(e)); and Title II, which prohibited corporations and unions from using general treasury funds for "electioneering communications" — broadcast ads aired within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election that refer to a clearly identified federal candidate (§203, amending FECA §316(b)(2)) — and imposed disclosure requirements on persons funding such communications (§201, amending FECA §304).

Procedural history: A three-judge panel issued a lengthy per curiam opinion that split on numerous provisions. The panel (Judges Kollar-Kotelly, Leon, and Henderson) upheld some parts of BCRA and struck down others.

Summary: McConnell v. FEC was the most comprehensive campaign finance decision since Buckley v. Valeo (1976). The Supreme Court largely upheld the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2002, including its two principal features: (1) the soft-money ban prohibiting national, state, and local political parties from raising and spending unregulated funds for federal election activities (Title I), and (2) the regulation of "electioneering communications" — broadcast ads aired within 30/60 days of an election referring to a federal candidate — including the prohibition on corporate and union treasury funds and the disclosure requirements (Title II). The Court applied the "closely drawn" scrutiny standard for contribution limits and found that the government's interest in preventing corruption and its appearance — extending beyond quid pro quo exchanges to "undue influence" — justified the soft-money restrictions. Critically, the Court rejected the argument that Buckley had established a constitutionally mandated line between "express advocacy" and "issue advocacy," holding instead that the "magic words" test was merely a product of statutory interpretation adopted to avoid vagueness concerns, and that BCRA's more precise definition of "electioneering communication" was constitutional. The Court struck down only two provisions: the "choice" provision requiring parties to choose between coordinated and independent expenditures (§213), and the ban on contributions by minors (§318). The decision represented the high-water mark of campaign finance regulation and was later significantly narrowed by FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life (2007), which established the "as-applied" challenge standard for electioneering communications, and Citizens United v. FEC (2010), which struck down the corporate/union treasury fund prohibition as applied to independent expenditures.

Conclusion: In a complex, multi-part opinion, the Supreme Court largely upheld BCRA — affirming the district court in part and reversing in part. The Court upheld the ban on national party committees soliciting, receiving, directing, or spending soft money, applying the "closely drawn" scrutiny standard for contribution limits under Buckley. The Court found that the governmental interest in preventing actual or apparent corruption extended beyond quid pro quo exchanges to "undue influence on an officeholder's judgment, and the appearance of such influence." The record was "replete with examples of national party committees peddling access to federal candidates and officeholders in exchange for large soft-money donations." The Court upheld restrictions on state and local parties using soft money for "Federal election activity" (voter registration, GOTV, generic campaign activity, public communications referring to federal candidates, and employee time). Congress reasonably predicted that donors would redirect soft money to state committees after §323(a), and preventing that shift qualified as an important governmental interest. The Levin Amendment — allowing state and local committees to use a mix of hard money and "Levin funds" (subject to state regulation and a $10,000/year contribution cap) for certain activities — was also upheld. The Court upheld the restriction on party committees soliciting funds for or making donations to §501(c) tax-exempt organizations and §527 political organizations engaged in federal election activities, as a valid anti-circumvention measure. The Court narrowly construed the "donations" ban to apply only to soft-money donations, not to funds already raised in compliance with FECA. The Court upheld the ban on federal candidates and officeholders soliciting, receiving, directing, transferring, or spending soft money in connection with federal elections, as well as the limits on their soft-money activities for state and local elections. The Court rejected plaintiffs' arguments that Title I exceeded Congress's Elections Clause authority or violated the Tenth Amendment, holding that Title I regulates private parties' conduct, imposes no requirements on state officials, and leaves states free to enforce their own restrictions. The Court rejected the argument that BCRA discriminated against political parties in favor of interest groups, noting that BCRA actually favors parties in many ways and that Congress may consider the "salient, real-world differences between parties and interest groups." The Court rejected plaintiffs' argument that Buckley established a constitutionally mandated line between "express advocacy" and "issue advocacy." The Court held that the express advocacy limitation was a product of statutory interpretation, not a constitutional command — it was adopted to avoid vagueness concerns with the specific statutory language at issue in Buckley. BCRA's definition of "electioneering communication" (broadcast ads within 30/60 days of an election referring to a clearly identified candidate) was held to be both easily understood and objectively determinable, so the vagueness concern was inapposite.

Legal Issue(s)

Campaign Finance

Applicable Law(s): Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, Federal Election Campaign Act, First Amendment, Tenth Amendment, and Article 1, Section 4 (Elections Clause) of the United States Constitution

Region: Americas

Country: United States of America

Language of Decision

English

Court: Supreme Court

Election Type: General

Date of decision: Dec 10, 2003

Geolocation

Latitude: 38.890591

Longitude: -77.004745

: Geolocation

Link: https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep540/usrep540093/usrep540093.pdf

Primary Documents

McConnell v. Federal Election Commission.pdf
English
Download View

Election Judgments - IFES

Select target paragraph3

McConnell v. Federal Election Commission

Primary Documents

Notifications