Speechnow
Speechnow
Speechnow
No. 08-5223
SPEECHNOW.ORG, ET AL.,
APPELLANTS
v.
No. 09-5342
v.
1
“Express advocacy” is regulated more strictly by the FEC than so-
called “issue ads” or other political advocacy that is not related to a
specific campaign. In order to preserve the FEC’s regulations from
invalidation for being too vague, the Supreme Court has defined
express advocacy as “communications containing express words of
advocacy of election or defeat, such as ‘vote for,’ ‘elect,’ ‘support,’
‘cast your ballot for,’ ‘Smith for Congress,’ ‘vote against,’ ‘defeat,’
‘reject.’” Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 44 n.52 (1976).
4
the order denying that injunction and remand the matter to the
district court for further proceedings consistent with our
decision.
I. Background
2
Subject to exceptions not here relevant, FECA defines
“contributions” as “any gift, subscription, loan, advance, or deposit of
money or anything of value made by any person for the purpose of
influencing any election for Federal office.” 2 U.S.C. § 431(8)(A)(i).
Again subject to exceptions, the Act defines “expenditure” as “any
purchase, payment, distribution, loan, advance, deposit, or gift of
money or anything of value, made by any person for the purpose of
8
II. Analysis
Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), the Supreme Court held that, although
contribution limits do encroach upon First Amendment interests,
they do not encroach upon First Amendment interests to as great
a degree as expenditure limits. In Buckley, the Supreme Court
first delineated the differing treatments afforded contribution
and expenditure limits. In that case, the Court struck down
limits on an individual’s expenditures for political advocacy, but
upheld limits on contributions to political candidates and
campaigns. In making the distinction, the Court emphasized
that in “contrast with a limitation upon expenditures for political
expression, a limitation upon the amount that any one person or
group may contribute to a candidate or political committee
entails only a marginal restriction upon the contributor’s ability
to engage in free communication.” Id. at 20-21. However,
contribution limits still do implicate fundamental First
Amendment interests. Id. at 23.
3
Of course, the government still has an interest in preventing quid pro
quo corruption. However, after Citizens United, independent
expenditures do not implicate that interest.
11
Over the next several decades, Congress and the Court gave
little further guidance respecting Buckley’s reasoning that a lack
of coordination diminishes the possibility of corruption. Just a
few months after Buckley, Congress codified a ban on
corporations’ independent expenditures at 2 U.S.C. § 441b. In
12
Conclusion
So ordered.