• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • A Loss for the FEC, A Victory for the First Amendment

    Yesterday, the federal district court for the District of Columbia issued an injunction against the Federal Election Commission in SpeechNow.org v. FEC. As a former Commissioner on the FEC, many people would probably be surprised to learn that I am almost always pleased when my former agency loses a case. My view is based on what I learned from two years of trying to properly interpret and enforce the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), the campaign finance law that governs anyone running for Congress or the White House. That is because FECA is one of the most complex, confusing, and Byzantine federal laws in existence, and it is a law that in many instances violates the rights of free speech and association that are protected in the First Amendment.

    SpeechNow.org is an association of citizens that wanted to pool their money to run independent political ads for and against candidates based on their support for the First Amendment. SpeechNow.org does not accept any money from corporations or unions and does not make any contributions to political candidates or parties. Although individuals are allowed under the First Amendment to spend unlimited amounts of money on independent political ads (which is political speech in its most basic form), if two or more individuals tried to pool their money to do exactly the same thing, the FEC classified them as a Political Action Committee. That meant that all of the registration requirements and contribution limits of FECA that govern PACs applied to SpeechNow.org, which acted as a direct and onerous limit on the association’s ability to engage in political speech.

    Fortunately, all nine justices of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of SpeechNow.org and against the FEC last March, holding that such government-imposed restrictions on participation in the political process are a violation of the First Amendment. The case was then remanded back to the federal district court. On June 1, the district court issued an injunction against the FEC that implemented the decision of the Court of Appeals. The injunction prevents the FEC from enforcing contribution limits against SpeechNow.org and its prospective donors. The FEC opposed the injunction claiming that it could be trusted to not enforce the federal law against SpeechNow.org. But as SpeechNow.org pointed out, the FEC did not agree to refrain from enforcing the law against prospective donors who were not parties to the case. This is important because the FEC, as is typical with many federal agencies, has a long history of trying to ignore and get around judgments it loses or interpretations of federal law that it does not like.

    In conjunction with the Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court, this decision goes a long way towards restoring First Amendment rights that have been systematically denied over the past thirty years by so-called “campaign finance reform” laws, most of which are more correctly termed as incumbent-protection laws. The latest example of that is the DISCLOSE Act, which is a “reform” bill being pushed through Congress in a big hurry by Senator Chuck Schumer and Rep. Chris Van Hollen in an attempt to reverse the Citizens United decision in time for the November election. It just goes to show that we are in a seemingly never-ending war to stop violations of our freedom and liberties by members of Congress who exhibit no qualms about violating the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

    Posted in Legal [slideshow_deploy]

    4 Responses to A Loss for the FEC, A Victory for the First Amendment

    1. Pingback: A Loss for the FEC, A Victory for the First Amendment « Faulk For Congress

    2. Mike, Wichita Falls says:

      Hans…as a former commissioner on the FEC, do you feel that there is anything Constitutional about this bureaucracy much less any of its edicts? I absolutely despise the fact that any group, corporation, union, etc., who are citizens, has to register with FEC to engage in political speech for or against any candidate or policy. Perhaps I do not understand the penumbra of emanations of the 1st amendment?

    3. Pingback: First Amendment – 1, Bureaucrats – 0 « The Obama Watch Blog

    4. Wildcat from Dallast says:

      Anything brought forth by Senator Chuck Schumer or associated with that senator should be dissected then exposed to the American people before being made a non-issue having no vote and no chance in any legislative body to be brought to a vote.

      What should be brought to a vote in the U. S. Senate is a motion that Sen. Chuck Schumer should be brought up on charges of fraud, waste and abuse of the American taxpayer’s money as he appears to be strongly opposed to anything resembling their personal liberties and freedoms and everything to do with eliminating the thoughts and speech emanating from those great Americans who possess genuine cogent reasoning skills.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×