Appeals court affirms summary judgment in CLC v. FEC (19-2336 / 21-5081, 22-5336)

On July 8, 2024, the United States Circuit Court for the District of Columbia (the appeals court) upheld the District Court's summary judgment in favor of the Campaign Legal Center and Catherine Hinckley Kelley (plaintiffs).

Background

Plaintiffs filed an administrative complaint on October 6, 2016, alleging that Correct the Record (CTR) spent nearly $6 million in coordination with Hillary for America (HFA) during the lead-up to the 2016 election. On June 4, 2019, the Commission voted to dismiss the complaint, with controlling Commissioners citing the internet exception to the definition of contribution. Plaintiffs filed suit to challenge that dismissal on August 2, 2019. The Commission did not initially appear to defend the dismissal, and the district court permitted CTR and HFA to intervene as defendants. The initial decision by the district court held that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the Commission's decision.

On April 19, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia reversed the district court’s dismissal as to informational injury under the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA or the Act), finding that the determination of whether certain campaign spending is legally categorized as coordinated does indeed qualify as additional “factual information.”

On remand, the district court found that the controlling analysis in the Commission's dismissal was contrary to examples and reasoning the Commission itself had offered when promulgating the applicable regulations. As such, the dismissal was contrary to law. The court further stated that there was ample evidence of coordination that the Commission failed to consider. In December 2022, the Commission filed an appeal, urging reversal, arguing that it acted consistently with the Act and Commission regulations.

Analysis

The appeals court affirmed the district court's decision that the Commission's dismissal of plaintiffs' complaint was contrary to law, noting that the internet exception was never intended "as a FECA-swallowing loophole enabling political committees to launder all their coordinated expenditures via unpaid internet postings." Regarding communications not covered by the internet exemption, the appeals court concluded, “the Commission acted contrary to law in dismissing the complaint for want of reason to believe the relevant expenditures were coordinated with the campaign, despite plausible allegations that Correct the Record coordinated all its expenditures with Hillary for America—and openly acknowledged doing so.” The appeals court remanded the case to the district court with instructions to remand to the FEC to "sketch the bounds" of the internet exemption.

Resources

• Campaign Legal Center, et al. v. FEC (19-2336 / 21-5081, 22-5336) litigation page