Maine Right to Lifev.Federal Election

United States Court of Appeals, First CircuitOct 18, 1996
98 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1996)

Cases citing this case

24 Citing Cases

Summaries written by judges

  • adopting 914 F. Supp. at 11: "[I]t is commonplace that the meaning of words is not fixed, but depends heavily on context as well as the shared assumptions of speaker and listener."

    Summary of this case from Federal Election Comm. v. Christian Coalition

  • adopting 914 F. Supp. at 11: "[I]t is commonplace that the meaning of words is not fixed, but depends heavily on context as well as the shared assumptions of speaker and listener."

    Summary of this case from Federal Election Com'n v. Christian Coal.

7 Summaries

No. 96-1532.

Heard October 8, 1996

Decided October 18, 1996.

David Kolker, Attorney, with whom Lawrence M. Noble, General Counsel, and Richard B. Bader, Associate General Counsel, Washington, DC, were on brief, for defendant-appellant Federal Election Commission.

Dennis M. Flannery, Ankur J. Goel, Wilmer, Cutler Pickering and Donald J. Simon, on brief, Washington, DC, for Common Cause, amicus curiae.

James Bopp, Jr., with whom Paul R. Scholle, Bopp, Coleson Bostrom, Daniel M. Snow and Pierce Atwood, were on brief, Terre Haute, IN, for plaintiffs-appellees.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE, [Hon. D. Brock Hornby, U.S. District Judge].

Before Torruella, Chief Judge, Cyr and Boudin, Circuit Judges.


Defendant-appellant, the Federal Election Commission ("FEC"), appeals the decision of the district court that "11 CFR Section(s) 100.22(b) is contrary to the [Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), 2 U.S.C. §(s) 431-55,] as the Supreme Court and the First Circuit Court of Appeals have interpreted it and thus beyond the power of the FEC." Maine Right to Life Committee, Inc. v. Federal Election Commission, 914 F. Supp. 8, 13 (D. Me. 1996). Appellant argues that the "express advocacy" regulation promulgated in Section(s) 100.22(b) is facially reasonable, advances compelling governmental interests, and is entitled to deference.

After a careful evaluation of the parties' briefs and the record on appeal, we affirm for substantially the reasons set forth in the district court opinion. See Maine Right to Life Committee, 914 F. Supp. 8; see also Federal Election Commission v. Christian Action Network, 894 F. Supp. 946 (W.D. Va. 1995), aff'd per curiam, 92 F.3d 1178 (table), No. 95-2600, (4th Cir. Aug. 2, 1996) (unpublished disposition) (granting defendants' motion to dismiss on the grounds that the complained-of actions did not constitute violations of FECA, and the FEC lacked jurisdiction to bring suit).

Costs to appellee.

Affirmed.