Previous 21 / 273 Next

Cite as: 540 U. S. 93 (2003) Counsel Briefs in No. 02-1740 were filed for appellants Victoria Jackson Gray Adams et al. by John C. Bonifaz, Bonita P. Tenneriello, Lisa J. Danetz, Brenda Wright, and David A. Wilson. Briefs in No. 02-1747 were filed for appellants Congressman Ron Paul et al. by William J Olson, John S. Miles, Herbert W Titus, and Gary G. Kreep. Briefs in No. 02-1756 were filed for appellants Chamber of Commerce of the United States et al. by Jan Witold Baran, Lee E. Goodman, Stephen A. Bokat, and Jan Amundson.t tA brief of amici curiae urging reversal was filed for the Commonwealth of Virginia et al. by Jerry Kilgore, Attorney General of Virginia, and CraigEngle, and by the Attorneys General for their respective States as follows: Lawrence Wasden of Idaho, Steve Carterof Indiana, Phill Kline of Kansas, Jon Bruning of Nebraska, Wayne Stenehjem of North Dakota, Jim Petro of Ohio, Henry McMaster of South Carolina, Larry Long of South Dakota, and Mark Shurtleff of Utah. Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the Center for Governmental Studies by Richard L. Hasen; and for Thomas D. Grant et al. by ChristopherJ Wright and Timothy J. Simeone. Briefs of amici curiae were filed for the State of Iowa et al. by Thomas J Miller,Attorney General of Iowa, and Thomas Andrews, Assistant Attorney General, William H. Sorrell, Attorney General of Vermont, and Bridget C. Asay, Assistant Attorney General, and Richard Blumenthal, Attorney General of Connecticut, and by the Attorneys General for their respective jurisdictions as follows: Terry Goddardof Arizona, Ken Salazar of Colorado, Albert B. Chandler III of Kentucky, Richard P. Ieyoub of Louisiana, G. Steven Rowe of Maine, Thomas F Reilly of Massachusetts, Mike Hatch of Minnesota, Mike Moore of Mississippi, Jeremiah (Jay) Nixon of Missouri, Mike McGrath of Montana, Eliot Spitzer of New York, W. A Drew Edmondson of Oklahoma, Anabelle Rodriguez of Puerto Rico, Patrick Lynch of Rhode Island, Christine 0. Gregoire of Washington, Peggy Lautenschlagerof Wisconsin, and Iver A Stridiron of the Virgin Islands; for the Allen Temple Baptist Church et al. by Martin R. Glick; for the American Civil Rights Union by John C. Armor and Peter Ferrara; for Bipartisan Former Members of the United States Congress by Randy L. Dryer and J Michael Bailey; for the California Student Public Interest Research Group, Inc., et al. by Bonita Tenneriello, John C. Bonifaz, Brenda Wright, Lisa J. Danetz, and David A Wilson; for the Cato Insti-

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