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

FEC v. Christian Action Network

Summary

Background

On June 28, 1995, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia, Lynchburg Division, dismissed this case. The FEC had brought suit against the Christian Action Network (CAN) for making independent expenditures [1] with corporate funds, for failing to include the proper disclaimer on its political communications and for failing to file the required reports with the FEC.

On August 2, 1996, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in an unpublished opinion, upheld the district court's dismissal of this case. The court of appeals, finding "no error" in the district court opinion, affirmed that court's decision. Following, on April 7, 1997, the Fourth Circuit granted a request from the CAN that the FEC pay its attorney fees and other costs associated with this case. The court remanded the case to the district court to set the amount to be awarded.

District court decision

The communications in question—a television advertisement and two newspaper advertisements that ran during the weeks leading up to the 1992 Presidential general election—assailed then-candidate Bill Clinton's alleged position on gay rights.

The court ruled that the communications were outside the Commission's jurisdiction because they did not expressly advocate the election or defeat of Mr. Clinton.

The court reached this conclusion on the basis of the Supreme Court's decision in Buckley v. Valeo. In that case, the Supreme Court said that, for a communication to be considered an independent expenditure and thus subject to FEC regulation, it must expressly advocate the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate. [2] In reviewing relevant court decisions since Buckley, the court found that "political expression, including discussion of public issues and debate on the qualifications of candidates, enjoys extensive First Amendment protection" and that the courts "have adopted a strict interpretation of the 'express advocacy' standard . . . . Thus, courts generally have been disinclined to entertain arguments made by the Commission that focus on anything other than the actual language used in an advertisement."

In arguing the case, the FEC had relied on the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit's decision in FEC v. Furgatch. In that case, the appeals court considered the timing and context of a communication in determining the existence of express advocacy. The FEC stressed that those elements were important here as well: the CAN television advertisement aired in the weeks leading up to the 1992 general election, and, although the ad did not contain words that expressly advocated Mr. Clinton's defeat, its imagery, music, editing, coloring, etc. clearly conveyed that message.

The FEC also pointed out that the newspaper ads-both of which referred to the "voting public" and one of which referred to a Presidential debate scheduled for that day-conveyed a message identical to that of the television ad. Viewed collectively, the FEC contended, the three ads sent voters the message to vote against Mr. Clinton and his policies in the November elections.

The court recognized the validity of the Furgatch approach but noted that the Furgatch court stated that the context and timing of a communication were peripheral to the actual words themselves, and therefore should be given only limited weight when determining the presence of express advocacy.

Focusing on the words contained in the ads, the court said there was no call for electoral action. The newspaper ads' reference to the "voting public" "does not per se translate into an exhortation to vote."

Finding that express advocacy was absent from the ads, the court concluded that "the Defendants' advertisements represent the very type of issue advocacy the Buckley Court sought to exempt from government regulation."

FOOTNOTES:

[1] An independent expenditure is an expenditure made without any coordination with a candidate's campaign for a communication which expressly advocates the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate for federal office.

[2] The court listed the following examples of words that constitute express advocacy: "vote for," "elect," "support," "cast your ballot for," "Smith for Congress," "vote against," "defeat," "reject."

Source:   FEC Record—May 1997; October 1996; and September 1995. FEC v. Christian Action Network, 894 F. Supp. 946 (W.D. Va. 1995), aff'd per curiam, 92 F.3d 1178 (4th Cir. 1996).

Documents

Appeals Court (4th Circuit) (95-2600)

Court decisions:

Related documents:

District Court (W. Dist. Va) (94-0082)

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.