Summary
This Fifth Circuit opinion addresses constitutional challenges to provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) that limit political party contributions and coordinated expenditures for federal candidates. Applying Supreme Court precedent, particularly Buckley v. Valeo, the court held that these limitations constitute permissible regulations of campaign finance that do not violate the First Amendment right to free speech. The court also affirmed the district court's dismissal of several claims as frivolous and found that the plaintiffs had sufficient Article III standing to proceed.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the plaintiffs have standing to bring the First Amendment challenges under 2 U.S.C. § 437h.
- Whether the $5,000 contribution limit at 2 U.S.C. § 441a(a)(2)(A) violates the First Amendment.
- Whether the coordinated expenditure limits at 2 U.S.C. § 441a(d)(2)–(3) and the contribution provision at 2 U.S.C. § 441a(a)(7)(B)(i) are unconstitutional as applied to the plaintiffs.
- Whether a political party’s “own speech” may be regulated as a contribution.
Holdings
- The plaintiffs have satisfied the Article III requirements of injury in fact, causation, and redressability and therefore have standing to bring their constitutional claims.
- The $5,000 contribution limit at 2 U.S.C. § 441a(a)(2)(A) is constitutional.
- Sections 441a(d)(2)–(3), 441a(a)(2)(A), and 441a(a)(7)(B)(i) do not violate the First Amendment as applied to the plaintiffs.
- Congress may regulate a party’s “own speech” when it is a coordinated expenditure that functions as a contribution.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the plaintiffs’ non‑certified questions as frivolous.
Key quotations
“We find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding the Plaintiffs’ fourth question frivolous.” (at 215)
“Accordingly, we remand this case to the district court for entry of judgment consistent with this opinion.” (at 215)
Factual background
Rep. Anh "Joseph" Cao and the Republican National Committee challenged several provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act that limited the RNC’s contributions and coordinated expenditures in Cao’s 2008 congressional campaign. The RNC had spent its allotted $42,100 of coordinated expenditures and reached the $5,000 contribution limit. The parties sought to run a coordinated radio advertisement (the “Cao Ad”) and argued that the statutory limits violated their First Amendment rights.
Procedural history
The district court addressed the plaintiffs’ eight constitutional challenges to FECA, certified four questions for appellate review, and dismissed the remaining four as frivolous. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of the non‑certified questions, which the Fifth Circuit consolidated with the en banc consideration of the certified questions.
Remand instructions
Enter judgment consistent with this opinion, upholding the constitutionality of the challenged FECA provisions and rejecting the plaintiffs’ claims.