skip navigation
Here's how you know US flag signifying that this is a United States Federal Government website

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Dot gov

Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

SSL

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Federal Election Commission | United States of America

Christian Civic League of Maine, Inc. v. FEC

Summary

On August 21, 2007, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted the Christian Civic League of Maine, Inc.’s (CCL) request for declaratory relief regarding campaign finance law restrictions on a radio ad planned by CCL. CCL had challenged the constitutionality of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act’s (BCRA) electioneering communication financing restrictions as applied to certain so-called “grassroots lobbying” ads. The court denied CCL’s request for declaratory relief as to other communications and CCL’s request for injunctive relief.

Background

CCL is a nonprofit corporation organized under section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code that allegedly engages in some business activity. CCL wanted to use its general treasury funds to broadcast a radio ad prior to a 2006 Senate vote on a particular proposed constitutional amendment. The ad identified Senator Olympia Snowe by name and was to air in close proximity to her June 13, 2006, primary election. If the ad had aired in Senator Snowe’s state within 30 days prior to her primary (or 60 days prior to the general), it would have qualified as an electioneering communication (EC). 2 U.S.C. 434(f)(3)(A)(i). Under the Federal Election Campaign Act (the Act), as amended by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, corporate funds cannot be used to finance an EC. CCL’s suit contends that this financing restriction prevents it from exercising its First Amendment right to free speech.

The Supreme Court upheld the electioneering communications provision in McConnell v. FEC, stating that, although the provision might apply to some so-called “issue ads,” it is narrowly tailored to meet a compelling government interest. 540 U.S. 93, 206 (2003). After McConnell, on June 25, 2007, the Supreme Court upheld a district court ruling in another case that concerned the constitutionality of the electioneering communications provisions, FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life (WRTL). In that case, the court found the electioneering communication financing restrictions unconstitutional as applied to ads that WRTL, a 501(c)(4) nonprofit corporation, intended to run before the 2004 elections. The Supreme Court concluded that the electioneering communication financing restrictions are unconstitutional as applied to these ads because:

  • The ads are not express advocacy or its functional equivalent; and
  • The Court found no sufficiently compelling governmental interest to justify burdening WRTL’s speech. (See August 2007 Record)

CCL did not broadcast “Crossroads” and, on April 3, 2006, filed a complaint challenging the constitutionality of the electioneering communication financing restrictions as applied to its planned ads. On September 27, 2006, the district court dismissed CCL’s request for a permanent injunction to prevent the FEC from applying its electioneering communications rules to "Crossroads," concluding that the Senate’s June 2006 vote on the legislation referenced in the ad had rendered the issue moot. The court further granted the FEC’s motion for dismissal of CCL’s claims about possible other ads because they were not ripe for review and were too speculative. CCL admittedly had no firm plans to create or distribute any future ads besides the spring 2006 ad. The Constitution requires an actual “case or controversy” for the court to decide, so a party’s grievance cannot be solely hypothetical.

District court decision (2006)

Denial of preliminary injunction

On May 9, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia denied the Christian Civic League of Maine’s (CCL) motion for a preliminary injunction.

The court cited the Supreme Court finding in McConnell v. FEC that the government had a compelling interest in limiting the expenditure of corporate treasury funds via the electioneering communication (EC) provision contained in the Act. It also restated from McConnell that the EC provision is not a ban on expression, but rather a requirement that corporations fund certain advertisements through their separate segregated funds. The court found that the communication CCL intended to air was functionally equivalent to the “sham issue advertisements” that the McConnell court identified.

Although the court found that the CCL had several different options in communicating its message that would avoid violating the electioneering communication provision, CCL chose not to exercise these options. Therefore, the court found that CCL had not established the likelihood of irreparable harm and that granting a preliminary injunction would harm the interest of the Commission and the public by preventing the enforcement of an Act of Congress.

Court decision

On September 27, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted partial motions to dismiss and for judgment on the pleadings, and dismissed all other CCL claims as moot.

The CCL filed a complaint on April 3, 2006, with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia asking the court to find the statutes and regulations regarding electioneering communications to be unconstitutional as applied to broadcast advertisements that CCL contends constitute "grassroots lobbying." CCL further requests preliminary and permanent injunctions enjoining the FEC from enforcing these regulations against CCL and payment of attorneys’ fees.

CCL is a nonprofit corporation group organized under 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue code. It claims that it is not a qualified nonprofit corporation within the meaning of 11 CFR 114.10. CCL seeks to air a radio advertisement and other broadcast communications that are electioneering communications (EC) under the Federal Election Campaign Act (the Act). The Act prohibits corporations from distributing or financing ECs with corporate treasury funds.

CCL contends that its communications cannot constitutionally be regulated because they are "grassroots lobbying" communications. CCL believes that it is constitutionally entitled to pay for its planned advertisements with general corporate funds.

The district court dismissed CCL’s request for a permanent injunction to prevent the FEC from applying its EC rules to CCL’s proposed ad, concluding that the Senate’s vote on the legislation referenced in the ad had rendered the issue moot. CCL contended that its situation fit within the "capable of repetition, yet evading review" exception to the mootness doctrine. The court disagreed, noting that CCL’s claims were closely tied to the facts surrounding the spring 2006 ad, circumstances that were unlikely to recur and would not necessarily evade review even if they did recur. The court further granted defense motions for dismissal of CCL’s claims about possible other ads because they were not ripe for review and were too speculative. CCL admittedly had no firm plans to create or distribute any future ads besides the spring 2006 ad. The Constitution requires an actual “case or controversy” for the court to decide, so a party’s grievance cannot be solely hypothetical.

Supreme Court decision

On October 2, 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed as moot CCL’s appeal of the district court’s May 9, 2006, denial of a preliminary injunction; see June 2006 Record. On May 12, 2006, CCL filed an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court and moved for expedited consideration and consolidated briefing of the matter. On May 15, the Court rejected CCL’s motion to expedite and consolidate.

District court decision (2007)

On August 21, 2007, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted the CCL’s (CCL) request for declaratory relief regarding campaign finance law restrictions on a radio ad planned by CCL.

Although the district court in CCL v. FEC had held in its earlier opinion that CCL’s claims regarding "Crossroads" were moot, the court reviewed that opinion in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in WRTL and found that these claims were not moot because they fell within the Supreme Court’s exception for claims that are “capable of repetition, yet evading review.” Having reached the merits of the claims, the court found that, in accordance with the Supreme Court’s decision in WRTL, the BCRA’s electioneering communication financing restrictions are unconstitutional as applied to CCL’s 2006 "Crossroads” ad. The court granted CCL’s request for declaratory relief with regards to this ad, but denied CCL’s request for declaratory relief with regard to other communications and denied its request for injunctive relief.

Source: FEC Record — October 2007; November 2006; June 2006; May 2006. Christian Civic League of Maine, Inc. v. FEC, 529 U.S. 05-1447 (Oct. 2, 2006)

Documents

Supreme Court

Court decisions:

Related documents:

District Court (DC)

Court decisions:

Related documents:

This information is not intended to replace the law or to change its meaning, nor does this information create or confer any rights for or on any person or bind the Federal Election Commission or the public.

The reader is encouraged also to consult the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended (52 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.), Commission regulations (Title 11 of the Code of Federal Regulations), Commission advisory opinions and applicable court decisions.