Federal Election Commission v. National Conservative Political Action Committee
United States Supreme Court
470 U.S. 480 (1985)
- Written by Galina Abdel Aziz , JD
Facts
The National Conservative Political Action Committee (NCPAC) and the Fund for a Conservative Majority (FCM) (defendants) were independent political-action committees. In 1979-80, NCPAC received an average $75 contribution from 101,000 people. In 1980, FCM received an average $25 contribution from 100,000 people. NCPAC and FCM solicited funds and spent money on radio and television advertisements in support of President Ronald Reagan. The independent expenditures were not made in coordination or at the request of the official Reagan campaign. Under the Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act (PECFA), presidential candidates of major political parties could opt into public financing for the general election. Once a candidate opted into public financing, PECFA § 9012(f) criminalized expenditures greater than $1,000 by political committees. In May 1983, the Democratic Party sued NCPAC and FCM, seeking a declaration that PECFA § 9012(f) was constitutional. The Federal Elections Committee (FEC) joined to move to dismiss for lack of standing. In June 1983, the FEC sued NCPAC and FCM for identical relief. The court denied granting a declaration that PECFA § 9012(f) was constitutional as requested by the FEC and Democratic Party. The court held that PECFA § 9012(f) violated First Amendment freedoms of speech and association, was substantially overbroad, and could not be given a narrow construction. The court did not hold, however, that PECFA § 9012(f) was unconstitutional.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Rehnquist, J.)
Dissent (White, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 804,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.