FEC v. Christian Action Network
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  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On August 2, 1996, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in an unpublished opinion, upheld the district court's dismissal of this case.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.  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."
 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.
 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."
Appeals Court (4th Circuit) (95-2600)
- Order (05/05/1997)
- Published Memo Opinion (04/07/1997)
- Opinion (08/02/1996)
- Order (denying DNC's Motion for Expanded and Divided Argument Time) (04/09/1996)
- FEC's Petition for Rehearing and Suggestions for Rehearing en banc (05/21/1997)
- FEC's Response to Defendants-Appellees' Motion for Determination of Proper Court for EAJA Application (01/16/1997)
- FEC's Opposition to Defendants-Appellees' Application for Fees (01/16/1997)
- Brief of Amicus Curiae ACLU of Virginia, Inc. in Support of Appellees (12/16/1996)
- Defendants-Appellees' Application for Fees (11/27/1996)
- Defendants-Appellees' Motion for Determination of Proper Court for EAJA Application (11/27/1996)
- FEC's Reply Brief (02/01/1996)
- Brief of Defendants-Appellees CAN and Martin Mawyer (01/16/1996)
- Brief of Amicus Curiae Democratic National Committee (12/04/1995)
- Brief for the FEC (12/04/1995)
District Court (W. Dist. Va) (94-0082)
- Final Order (06/28/1995)
- Memorandum Opinion Granting CAN's Motion to Dismiss (06/28/1995)
- Plaintiff FEC's Notice of Appeal (08/25/1995)
- Defendants' Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition to Motion to Dismiss (03/06/1995)
- Plaintiff FEC's Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (02/13/1995)
- Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (01/05/1995)
- Complaint for Declaratory, Injunctive and Other Appropriate Relief (10/18/1994)