FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life

Last updated

Federal Election Commission v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Inc.
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued October 7, 1986
Decided December 15, 1986
Full case nameFederal Election Commission v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Inc.
Docket no. 85-701
Citations479 U.S. 238 ( more )
107 S. Ct. 616; 93 L. Ed. 2d 539; 1986 U.S. LEXIS 26
Holding
Massachusetts Citizens for Life violated the Federal Election Campaign Act by distributing flyers asking voters to vote "for life" paid for with treasury funds, however that section of FECA itself violated the First Amendment.
Court membership
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Associate Justices
William J. Brennan Jr.  · Byron White
Thurgood Marshall  · Harry Blackmun
Lewis F. Powell Jr.  · John P. Stevens
Sandra Day O'Connor  · Antonin Scalia
Case opinions
MajorityBrennan (Parts I and II), joined by unanimous
MajorityBrennan (Parts III–B and III–C), joined by Marshall, Powell, O'Connor, Scalia
PluralityBrennan (Part III–A), joined by Marshall, Powell, Scalia
ConcurrenceO'Connor (in part and in judgment)
Concur/dissentRehnquist, joined by White, Blackmun, Stevens
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. I

BackGround Info

Massachusetts Citizens for Life was a nonprofit corporation, "to defend the right to life of all human beings born and unborn," with advication activities. Its' published newsletter would allow individuals who support the organization to receive updates. In September, 1978, Massachusetts Citizens for Life distributed a "Special Edition" telling people to vote "pro-life" in the primary elections. It listed candidates for every office in every voting district through Massachusetts, and labeled each candidate as pro or against their views. The publication was distributed to a larger audience than of the standard newsletter (the general public, not just supporters). Additionally it was financed by money taken from Massachusetts Citizens for Life's general treasury funds. A Federal Election Commission complaint was filed. Claiming the "Special Edition" violated § 316; funds used from a corporate treasury to distribute a campaign flyer (of certain political candidates) toward the general public. The FEC did determine probable cause of a violation of the statute. The FEC then led a complaint in Federal District Court. [1]

Contents

Case

In Federal Election Commission v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Inc., 479 U.S. 238 (1986), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Inc., a pro-life organization, [2] violated the Federal Election Campaign Act by distributing flyers asking voters to vote "for life" paid for with treasury funds. However, the court also ruled that the FECA section that required any spending by corporations on political campaigning to be done through political action committees (PACs) was itself a violation of the First Amendment rights of nonprofit political and ideological groups. [3] [4]

See also

Related Research Articles

Campaign finance laws in the United States have been a contentious political issue since the early days of the union. The most recent major federal law affecting campaign finance was the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2002, also known as "McCain-Feingold". Key provisions of the law prohibited unregulated contributions to national political parties and limited the use of corporate and union money to fund ads discussing political issues within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary election; However, provisions of BCRA limiting corporate and union expenditures for issue advertising were overturned by the Supreme Court in Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life.

In the United States, a political action committee (PAC) is a tax-exempt 527 organization that pools campaign contributions from members and donates those funds to campaigns for or against candidates, ballot initiatives, or legislation. The legal term PAC was created in pursuit of campaign finance reform in the United States. Democracies of other countries use different terms for the units of campaign spending or spending on political competition. At the U.S. federal level, an organization becomes a PAC when it receives or spends more than $1,000 for the purpose of influencing a federal election, and registers with the Federal Election Commission (FEC), according to the Federal Election Campaign Act as amended by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. At the state level, an organization becomes a PAC according to the state's election laws.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Federal Election Commission</span> United States independent regulatory agency that regulates federal elections

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) is an independent agency of the United States government, whose purpose is to enforce campaign finance law in United States federal elections. Created in 1974 through amendments to the Federal Election Campaign Act, the commission describes its duties as "to disclose campaign finance information, to enforce the provisions of the law such as the limits and prohibitions on contributions, and to oversee the public funding of Presidential elections."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act</span> 2002 American law regulating political campaigns

The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, commonly known as the McCain–Feingold Act or BCRA, is a United States federal law that amended the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, which regulates the financing of political campaigns. Its chief sponsors were senators Russ Feingold (D-WI) and John McCain (R-AZ). The law became effective on 6 November 2002, and the new legal limits became effective on January 1, 2003.

A 527 organization or 527 group is a type of U.S. tax-exempt organization organized under Section 527 of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code. A 527 group is created primarily to influence the selection, nomination, election, appointment or defeat of candidates to federal, state or local public office.

The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 is the primary United States federal law regulating political campaign fundraising and spending. The law originally focused on creating limits for campaign spending on communication media, adding additional penalties to the criminal code for election law violations, and imposing disclosure requirements for federal political campaigns. The Act was signed into law by President Richard Nixon on February 7, 1972.

First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765 (1978), is a U.S. constitutional law case which defined the free speech right of corporations for the first time. The United States Supreme Court held that corporations have a First Amendment right to make contributions to ballot initiative campaigns. The ruling came in response to a Massachusetts law that prohibited corporate donations in ballot initiatives unless the corporation's interests were directly involved.

An independent expenditure, in elections in the United States, is a political campaign communication that expressly advocates for the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate that is not made in cooperation, consultation or concert with; or at the request or suggestion of a candidate, candidate's authorized committee or political party. If a candidate, his/her agent, his/her authorized committee, his/her party, or an "agent" for one of these groups becomes "materially involved", the expenditure is not independent.

Lyndon LaRouche's United States presidential campaigns were a controversial staple of American politics between 1976 and 2004. LaRouche ran for president on eight consecutive occasions, a record for any candidate, and tied Harold Stassen's record as a perennial candidate. LaRouche ran for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States seven times, beginning in 1980.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Campaign finance in the United States</span> Contributions to American election campaign funds

The financing of electoral campaigns in the United States happens at the federal, state, and local levels by contributions from individuals, corporations, political action committees, and sometimes the government. Campaign spending has risen steadily at least since 1990.

Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., 551 U.S. 449 (2007), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that issue ads may not be banned from the months preceding a primary or general election.

Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652 (1990), is a United States corporate law case of the Supreme Court of the United States holding that the Michigan Campaign Finance Act, which prohibited corporations from using treasury money to make independent expenditures to support or oppose candidates in elections, did not violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court upheld the restriction on corporate speech, stating, "Corporate wealth can unfairly influence elections"; however, the Michigan law still allowed the corporation to make such expenditures from a segregated fund.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States regarding campaign finance laws and free speech under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The court held 5–4 that the freedom of speech clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for political campaigns by corporations, including nonprofit corporations, labor unions, and other associations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Campaign Legal Center</span> American nonprofit organization

Campaign Legal Center (CLC) is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) government watchdog group in the United States. CLC supports strong enforcement of United States campaign finance laws. Trevor Potter, former Republican chairman of the Federal Election Commission, is CLC's founding president.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Dark money</span> Undisclosed American political contributions

In politics, particularly the politics of the United States, dark money refers to spending to influence elections, public policy, and political discourse, where the source of the money is not disclosed to the public.

Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. FEC, 518 U.S. 604 (1996), was a case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Colorado Republican Party challenged the Federal Election Commission (FEC) as to whether the "Party Expenditure Provision" of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA) violated the First Amendment right to free speech. This provision put a limit on the amount of money a national party could spend on a congressional candidate's campaign. The FEC argued that the Committee violated this provision when purchasing a radio advertisement that attacked the likely candidate of the Colorado Democratic Party. The court held that since the expenditures by the committee were made independently from a specific candidate, they did not violate the campaign contribution limitations established by the FECA, and were protected under the First Amendment.

<i>FEC v. National Conservative PAC</i> 1985 United States Supreme Court case

FEC v. National Conservative PAC, 470 U.S. 480 (1985), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States striking down expenditure prohibitions of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA), which regulates the fundraising and spending in political campaigns. The FECA is the primary law that places regulations on campaign financing by limiting the amount that may be contributed. The Act established that no independent political action committee may contribute more than $1,000 to any given presidential candidate in support of a campaign.

Shadow campaigns refers to spending meant to influence political outcomes where the source of the money is not publicly disclosed or is difficult to trace. United States campaign finance law has been regulated by the Federal Election Commission since its creation in the wake of the Watergate Scandal in 1975, and in the years following Citizens United v. FEC, there has been a rise in outside special interest groups spending money on political campaigns in the United States. Dark money leaves voters uninformed about important political information and it can obscure potential conflicts of interest for judges and legislators alike.

Federal Election Commission v. Ted Cruz for Senate, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), was a case related to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court of the United States struck down section 304 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, which limited the amount of money that candidates could be paid on personal loans to their campaign.

The 2024 United States House of Representatives elections in Massachusetts will be held on November 5, 2024, to elect the nine U.S. representatives from the State of Massachusetts, one from all nine of the state's congressional districts. The elections will coincide with the 2024 U.S. presidential election, as well as other elections to the House of Representatives, elections to the United States Senate, and various state and local elections.

References

  1. FEC v. Mass. Cit. for Life, 479 U.S. 238 (1986).
  2. McDonald, Matt. "Diehl Is Choice For Governor of Massachusetts Pro-Life Group; All The MCFL PAC Endorsements". NewBostonPost. Retrieved May 27, 2023.
  3. Wermiel, Stephen (December 16, 1986). "High Court Overturns Law Requiring Nonprofit Political Groups to Use PACs" . Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition. p. 4. Retrieved May 16, 2017 via ProQuest.
  4. "Federal Election Commission v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Inc". Oyez. Retrieved May 16, 2017.