| Litigation Home | Ongoing Litigation | Selected Cases | Alphabetical Case Index |
On November 13, 2008, the Republican National Committee (the RNC), the Chairman of the RNC, the California Republican Party and the Republican Party of San Diego County (collectively the Plaintiffs) filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia challenging the constitutionality of the "Soft Money of Political Parties" provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act (the Act), codified at 2 U.S.C. §441i. The Plaintiffs state that the soft money provisions as applied to their intended activities are overly broad and unconstitutional under the First Amendment guarantees of free speech and association, and are outside of Congress’
authority to regulate elections. The Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Expedite Summary Judgment Briefing Schedule on November 19, 2008.
The Act’s soft money provisions prohibit national parties from soliciting, receiving or spending any nonfederal funds and require state, district and local party committees to fund certain "federal election activity" (FEA) either with federal funds or, in certain cases, with a combination of federal and Levin funds. 2 U.S.C. §§441i(a)(1) and 441i(b)(1). There are four types of FEA:
The Plaintiffs state that the Supreme Court’s decision in Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 80 (1976), requires that the federal campaign finance laws limit only those First Amendment activities that are "unambiguously related to the campaign of a particular federal candidate." The Plaintiffs allege that they plan to use funds raised under state laws and other nonfederal funds for activities that they claim are not related to campaigns of particular federal candidates. These activities include the RNC’s raising and spending of nonfederal funds to pay for the present litigation and to support:
In addition, the Chairman of the RNC alleges that he intends to solicit nonfederal funds on behalf of the RNC for the activities described above, and to solicit nonfederal funds for the California Republican Party. The California Republican Party and the Republican Party of San Diego County allege that they intend to use nonfederal funds to pay for public communications in support of or opposition to state ballot initiatives, and that those communications may promote, attack, support or oppose federal candidates.
The Plaintiffs complain that the soft money provisions attempt to regulate activities, like those they plan to undertake, that are not "unambiguously
related to the campaign of a particular federal candidate." As such, they claim that the provisions, as applied to their planned activities, are overbroad and sweep into First Amendment activity without constitutional authority.
The Plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction against the FEC’s enforcement of 2 U.S.C. §441i, a judgment declaring the provision unconstitutional as applied to their activities and costs and attorneys fees.
On November 18, 2008, the court granted the Plaintiffs’ Application for Three-Judge Court. The Plaintiffs’ Motion to Expedite Summary Judgment is pending.
Source: FEC Record -- January 2009 [PDF].
