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.


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.

  • FEC Record: Litigation

Van Hollen v. FEC (District court April 2012)

May 4, 2012

On April 27, 2012, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued an order denying the intervenors’ motions for a stay pending appeal in Van Hollen v. FEC. This follows the Court’s grant of the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in which the Court found that the FEC had no statutory authority to limit certain disclosure obligations under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA).

The lawsuit challenges 11 CFR 104.20(c)(9), which requires corporations and labor organizations making electioneering communications to disclose donations of $1,000 or more that were “made for the purpose of furthering electioneering communications.” The lawsuit claims that the regulation is contrary to the disclosure regime of BCRA, which requires every person who makes electioneering communications to disclose “all contributors.” See 2 U.S.C. § 434(f)(1).

In denying the intervenors’ motions for a stay pending appeal, the Court determined that the intervenors did not demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits in the case, and that they failed to show that they will be irreparably harmed absent a stay. The Court pointed out that the Supreme Court expressly upheld BCRA’s electioneering communication disclosure requirements in Citizens United v. FEC, stating that the disclosure requirements “provide the electorate with information about the sources of election-related spending, and help citizens make informed choices in the political marketplace.” The Court also noted a public interest in denying the motions since “the public has a strong interest in the full disclosure mandated by the BCRA.” The intervenors have also sought a stay pending appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Those motions are pending.

The full text of the Court’s Memorandum Opinion and Order may be found here:

On April 26, the Commission filed a Notice informing the Court that it will not appeal the summary judgment order. Statements were issued by Chair Caroline C. Hunter and Commissioners Donald F. McGahn and Matthew S. Petersen, and by Vice Chair Ellen L. Weintraub and Commissioner Cynthia L. Bauerly.

U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia: Case 1:11-cv-00766-ABJ.


  • Author 
    • Zainab Smith
    • Communications Specialist