|
On September 18, 2009, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled in Emily's List v FEC.〔581 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2010)〕 The case’s main impact was to invalidate certain rules of the Federal Election Commission (FEC) as to what constituted a “solicitation” by a federally registered PAC, the proceeds of which were subject to reporting under federal regulation. However, Emily's List forms a critical book-end to a year (short a day) of critical change to the financing of American political campaigns. At the other book end, 364 days later, lies Advisory Opinion Request (AOR) 2010-20 (NDPAC) on which the Commissioners deadlocked, and in which Emily’s List once again plays a role. Between these book ends lies a seminal ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States, Citizens United v FEC〔130 S. Ct. 876 (2010)〕 and a second ruling from the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, SpeechNOW.org v. FEC〔599 F.3d 686 (D.C. Cir. 2010)〕 (“SpeechNow”) that applied the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United. Following these cases came two contentious FEC Advisory Opinions (AOs) applying these rulings to campaign finance regulations, AO 2010-09 (Club for Growth) and AO 2010-11 (Commonsense Ten). At issue is who can spend money, in what manner, and up to what limits. Some 5000 regular Political Action Committees (PACs), about 2/3 of which are “connected” to a corporation, union, or trade/membership association, are registered with the FEC and make direct contributions to candidates. There are more thousands of trade and member associations, unions and corporate interests, and an ever-growing stream of individual contributors and players in this marketplace of political ideas that may make direct or independent expenditures that support or oppose candidates. Changes to the campaign finance landscape affect each of these political participants, and continually alter the balance of influence amongst them. ==Emily’s List v Federal Election Commission== In Emily's List v. FEC, the US Court of Appeals considered a trio of FEC regulations that governed how non-connected PACs (those not sponsored by a corporation, union, trade or membership association, etc.) should allocate their political spending between federal and non-federal elections. Because many states allow higher contributions than are allowed under the federal limits, this becomes important where a PAC is engaged in spending in both federal and non-federal races. The greater percentage of its overhead and mixed expenditures (expenditures relating to both federal and non-federal candidates) the PAC can attribute to non-federal activity, the more it can fund its operations with money raised under state rules from states with fewer restrictions than exist at the federal level. In Emily's List, the court struck down several regulations that set a floor on the percentage of revenue that a PAC could attribute to non-federal activities. The Court held that the regulations were unconstitutional and outside the Commission’s authority to impose, and they were vacated by order to the lower District Court. The FEC rules at issue defined "contributions" as (a) All funds received in response to a communication that indicates that any portion of the funds received will be used to support or oppose the election of a clearly identified federal candidate; and (b) At least 50 percent of the funds received from such a communication if it refers to both federal and nonfederal candidates. These regulations established a new rule for when funds received in response to certain solicitations by a PAC must be treated as "contributions" under the Act and subject to federal limits. In practice, this would reduce the fundraising capabilities of organizations (generally larger ones). The rules regarding allocating spending between a PAC’s federal and nonfederal accounts were of equal concern to PACs. Emily’s List, a non-connected PAC, maintained both federal and nonfederal accounts. It alleged that the FEC exceeded its authority because under the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) it may only regulate money spent "for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office.".〔2 U.S.C. §431(8) and (9)〕 Emily’s list also argued that the allocation rules were similarly out of the FECs scope of authority because it could in practice require federal funds to be used to pay for nonfederal activities. Arguing that these regulations were unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, Emily’s list cited Buckley v. Valeo〔424 U.S. 1 (1976)〕 and McConnell v. FEC〔540 U.S. 93 (2003)〕 in which the Supreme Court prohibited the FEC from restricting the types and amounts of funds used to influence federal elections unless the restrictions are narrowly tailored to prevent corruption or the appearance thereof. Referencing Buckley v. Valeo, the Court found that campaign contributions and expenditures constitute "speech" and, therefore, fall under the protection of the First Amendment. The court – importantly - noted that limiting contributions and expenditures in an effort to equalize the political field is not a “legitimate government interest” sufficient to justify these regulations. The court went on to state that the only legitimate government interest that allows for the restriction of campaign finances is preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption. The Court's holding invalidated the new regulations and affirmed that only the anti-corruption rationale was sufficient basis to impose restrictions on political speech (spending). 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Campaign finance evolution in 2010」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|