Unity '08 v. FEC (District court)

On October 16, 2008, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted the FEC’s motion for summary judgment, finding that the FEC’s interpretation of the Federal Election Campaign Act (the Act) with regard to the activities of Unity08 (Plaintiff) was reasonable and that the FEC did not impermissibly infringe on Unity08’s rights under the First Amendment.

Background

Unity08, a nonprofit corporation organized under the laws of the District of Columbia, described itself as a “political movement” formed for the purpose of nominating and electing a “Unity Ticket” in the 2008 Presidential election. Unity08 intended to solicit funds via the Internet in order to qualify for a position on the ballot in approximately 37 states and planned to hold an “Internet online nominating convention” after qualifying for ballot access to select its candidates for President and Vice President.

Unity08 filed an advisory opinion (AO) request with the FEC asking whether it would be considered a “political committee”¹ before the conclusion of its online convention in the summer of 2008. In AO 2006-20 (See November 2006 Record), the FEC concluded that Unity08 would be a political committee once it spent more than $1,000 for ballot access, since spending money for ballot access is considered an expenditure under the Act, Commission regulations and prior advisory opinions. See 11 CFR 100.111(a). Additionally, the FEC determined that Unity08’s “major purpose” was the election or defeat of federal candidates, and therefore the FEC was not prevented by the First Amendment from finding that Unity08’s activities qualified it as a political committee.

Unity08 filed suit seeking to enjoin the FEC from enforcing AO 2006-20 against it and seeking a declaratory judgment that the advisory opinion violated its First Amendment rights. The FEC filed for summary judgment, arguing that Unity08 lacked standing to bring the action and that, even if Unity08 had standing, the FEC’s decision was neither arbitrary nor capricious, nor did the decision infringe on the Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights.

Decision

The court held that, since Unity08 sought to obtain ballot access merely as a placeholder for its candidates, it was reasonable for the Commission to conclude that any monies Unity08 spent to qualify for the ballot would be considered expenditures under the Act. The court held that Unity08’s ballot access was certain to benefit its candidates, who would be identified by party affiliation and office sought, and who would have declared their intentions to run for federal office when this benefit is conferred upon them. Large, unregulated disbursements made to obtain such access would therefore present the possibility of actual or apparent corruption that the Act was intended to limit. The court also concluded that the FEC’s determination that Unity08 would qualify as a political committee did not violate the First Amendment because Unity08’s major purpose was to nominate and support candidates for federal office.

U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, 1:07-cv-00053-RWR.

¹ The Act defines a “political committee” as “any committee, club, association, or other group of persons which receives contributions aggregating in excess of $1,000 during a calendar year or which makes expenditures aggregating in excess of $1,000 during a calendar year.” 2 U.S.C. §431(4)(A).