540 U.S. 93, 226–27 (2003)
The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 amended the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, the Communications Act of 1934, and other statutes to address the role of soft money and issue advocacy in federal elections.1
Plaintiffs included a diverse group of entities and individuals such as the National Rifle Association and the American Civil Liberties Union who alleged that BCRA was unconstitutional.2 Defendants included the Federal Election Commission and the Attorney General of the United States.3
The case was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and heard by a three-judge panel pursuant to special procedures in BCRA Section 403.4 The District Court received a voluminous record from the parties and issued a judgment on May 1, 2003, that upheld some provisions of BCRA and invalidated others.5
All losing parties filed direct appeals to the Supreme Court within ten days, and the Court noted probable jurisdiction on June 5, 2003, ordering expedited briefing and argument on September 8, 2003.6
More than a century of federal legislation preceded BCRA, beginning with the Tillman Act of 1907 that banned corporate contributions in connection with federal elections.7 Congress later extended prohibitions to unions, required disclosure of contributions and expenditures, and enacted FECA in 1971 with further amendments in 1974 that imposed contribution limits, expenditure ceilings, and created the FEC.8
The Supreme Court addressed constitutional challenges to the 1974 amendments in Buckley v. Valeo.9 After Buckley, the FEC permitted political parties to fund mixed-purpose activities such as voter registration and generic advertising in part with soft money not subject to FECA's source and amount limits.10
Soft-money fundraising by the national parties grew from $21.6 million in 1984 to $498 million in 2000, with large corporate and union donations often motivated by a desire for access to federal candidates.11 National parties transferred substantial soft money to state parties, which could use higher percentages for mixed activities under FEC allocation rules.12
The use of soft money also supported so-called issue ads that avoided express advocacy of a candidate's election or defeat and therefore fell outside FECA's disclosure and source restrictions.13 These ads frequently aired in the 60 days before federal elections, referred to clearly identified candidates, and were funded by corporations, unions, and tax-exempt organizations using misleading names.14
A Senate investigation into 1996 federal election practices documented both parties' use of soft money to obtain special access for large donors and the coordination of issue ads with candidates.15 The District Court compiled extensive evidence from declarations, expert reports, and internal party documents showing that federal officeholders solicited soft-money donations, that parties maintained tallies crediting donors to particular candidates, and that large soft-money contributions were often made to secure influence rather than for ideological reasons.16
Whether BCRA Title I's prohibition on national political party committees soliciting, receiving, directing, or spending soft money violates the First Amendment?17
Contribution limits, unlike expenditure limits, are subject to less rigorous scrutiny and are valid if closely drawn to match a sufficiently important governmental interest in preventing corruption and the appearance of corruption.18
Yes. The prohibition is closely drawn to the important interest in preventing corruption and its appearance.19 The record shows that soft-money contributions to national parties grew from $21.6 million in 1984 to $498 million in 2000.20 Federal officeholders solicited these donations.21 Parties maintained tallies crediting donors to particular candidates.22 Large soft-money contributions were often made to secure influence rather than for ideological reasons, as documented in the Senate investigation and party documents.23
The prohibition is constitutional.24
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Scalia, Kennedy
Chief Justice Rehnquist dissented from the decision to uphold the principal provisions of Title I.25 He concluded that the soft-money ban represents a significant departure from earlier jurisprudence that had permitted parties to use nonfederal funds for activities not directly tied to federal elections.26 In his view, the restrictions sweep too broadly and lack sufficient justification under precedents such as Buckley v. Valeo.27
Justice Scalia joined the Chief Justice's opinion and separately emphasized that the law abridges core political speech by restricting the ability of parties and their supporters to engage in unrestricted advocacy.28 He argued that the soft-money prohibitions impose direct burdens on political expression that cannot be justified by the government's interest in preventing corruption.29
Joined by Rehnquist
Justice Kennedy dissented from the decision to uphold most of BCRA.30 He argued that the statute constitutes a direct regulation of the content of political speech and that the restrictions on national parties exceed Congress's authority to prevent actual or apparent quid pro quo corruption.31 Kennedy maintained that the provisions fail to distinguish between legitimate political association and corrupt exchanges, thereby chilling protected First Amendment activity.32
Joined by Scalia
Justice Thomas joined the opinions of the Chief Justice and Justices Scalia and Kennedy.33 He concluded that the decision represents a serious departure from the principles of Buckley v. Valeo and the First Amendment by permitting broad restrictions on political contributions and solicitations.34 Thomas argued that the soft-money ban undermines the core protections for political speech and association recognized in prior campaign-finance cases.35
Whether BCRA Title I's restrictions on state and local party committees' use of soft money for federal election activities are constitutional?36
Yes. The restrictions are closely drawn because the record demonstrates that national parties transferred large amounts of soft money to state parties.39 State parties used higher allocation ratios for mixed activities.40 Federal candidates benefited from these efforts through voter registration and GOTV drives.41 The Levin Amendment provides a limited exception allowing state parties to use a mix of funds under state regulation while still protecting against circumvention.42
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Rehnquist
Justice Kennedy dissented from the decision to uphold most of BCRA. He argued that the statute constitutes a direct regulation of the content of political speech and that the restrictions on state and local parties exceed Congress's authority to prevent actual or apparent quid pro quo corruption.45 Kennedy maintained that the provisions fail to distinguish between legitimate political association and corrupt exchanges, thereby chilling protected First Amendment activity at the state level.46
Whether BCRA Title I's limits on political parties' solicitations for and donations to tax-exempt organizations are valid?47
Limits on party solicitations and donations to tax-exempt organizations are valid as anticircumvention measures when they prevent parties from using those organizations as conduits for soft money that would otherwise be prohibited.48
Yes. The limits are valid because the record shows that parties had already begun soliciting soft-money donations to tax-exempt groups for electioneering purposes.49 Such organizations conducted voter registration and issue advocacy benefiting federal candidates.50 The provision leaves parties free to solicit hard money or make federal-fund donations while closing the soft-money loophole.51
The limits are valid.52
Whether BCRA Title I's restrictions on federal candidates and officeholders soliciting or spending soft money are constitutional?53
Restrictions on federal candidates and officeholders are valid when they sever the direct link between large soft-money donors and federal officeholders while accommodating associational interests through limited exceptions.54
Yes. The restrictions are constitutional because the record shows that federal officeholders actively solicited soft money for their parties and for tax-exempt organizations.55 Such solicitations created the appearance of undue influence.56 The provision includes exceptions allowing limited solicitations to certain tax-exempt groups and joint fundraising with state parties.57
The restrictions are constitutional.
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Scalia
Justice Thomas joined the opinions of the Chief Justice and Justices Scalia and Kennedy. He concluded that the decision represents a serious departure from the principles of Buckley v. Valeo and the First Amendment by permitting broad restrictions on political contributions and solicitations. Thomas argued that the candidate restrictions undermine the core protections for political speech and association recognized in prior campaign-finance cases.58
Whether BCRA Title II's definition of electioneering communications is unconstitutionally vague or overbroad?59
A definition of electioneering communications that is limited to broadcast, cable, or satellite communications referring to a clearly identified federal candidate, aired within 30 or 60 days of an election, and targeted to the relevant electorate is not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad.60
No. The definition is not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad because it uses objective, easily understood criteria that avoid the vagueness problems of the magic-words test from Buckley.61 The record shows that the vast majority of such ads were intended to influence federal elections even without express advocacy.62
The definition is constitutional.63
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Breyer joined the Court's opinion except with respect to one portion of the principal opinion.64 He indicated agreement with the overall analysis of Title II while reserving judgment on a discrete aspect of the electioneering-communications provisions.65 Breyer emphasized that the definition addresses real-world circumvention of prior limits without imposing undue vagueness on speakers.66
He stressed the need for practical rules that account for the realities of modern campaign advertising.
Whether BCRA Title II's prohibition on corporations and labor unions using general treasury funds for electioneering communications is constitutional?67
A prohibition on corporations and labor unions using general treasury funds for electioneering communications is constitutional when it leaves open the alternative of using segregated PAC funds and is justified by the compelling interest in preventing the corrosive and distorting effects of corporate and union wealth on the electoral process.68
Yes. The prohibition is constitutional because the record demonstrates that corporations and unions spent hundreds of millions of dollars from their general treasuries on issue ads that functioned as the equivalent of express advocacy in the 60 days before elections.69 The provision permits the use of PAC funds while addressing the circumvention of FECA's source restrictions.70
The prohibition is constitutional.
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Ginsburg joined in full the Court's per curiam opinion and the opinions of Justices Stevens and O'Connor.71 She thereby endorsed the constitutionality of the corporate and union prohibition on treasury-fund expenditures for electioneering communications.72 Ginsburg stressed that the provision properly accounts for the unique characteristics of corporate and union wealth in the electoral process.73
She noted that the alternative of segregated funds adequately protects associational rights while curbing the distorting influence of aggregated wealth.
Whether BCRA Title II's disclosure requirements for electioneering communications are valid?74
Disclosure requirements for electioneering communications are valid when they serve the important governmental interests of providing the electorate with information, deterring corruption, and facilitating enforcement without preventing anyone from speaking.75
Yes. The disclosure requirements are valid because they apply only when aggregate disbursements exceed $10,000.76 They require identification of donors of $1,000 or more and of executory contracts.77 The record shows that sponsors of issue ads often used misleading names to conceal their identity, making disclosure necessary for informed voter choice.78
The disclosure requirements are valid.79
Whether BCRA's miscellaneous provisions in Titles III, IV, and V, including those on minor contributions and broadcaster recordkeeping, are constitutional?80
Provisions regulating minor contributions and imposing broadcaster recordkeeping requirements are constitutional when they are narrowly tailored to prevent circumvention and to promote transparency without imposing undue burdens.81
The provisions are constitutional in part and unconstitutional in part because the record shows that the ban on contributions by minors was overinclusive and lacked sufficient evidence of circumvention, while the broadcaster recordkeeping requirements impose only minimal administrative burdens and serve the governmental interest in verifying compliance with campaign-finance rules.82
The miscellaneous provisions are constitutional in part and unconstitutional in part.83