## Facts

- Federal law offered public financing to major-party presidential candidates for the general election.
- A provision of the Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act, 26 U.S.C. § 9012(f), made it a criminal offense for an independent “political committee” to spend more than $1,000 to further the election of a publicly financed presidential candidate.
- During the 1984 election, independent political committees, including the National Conservative Political Action Committee (NCPAC), planned substantial independent expenditures supporting President Reagan, who was expected to accept public financing.
- The Democratic Party and the Democratic National Committee filed suit against NCPAC and other committees seeking a declaration that § 9012(f) was constitutional.
- The Federal Election Commission (FEC) filed a separate suit against the same defendants seeking the same declaratory relief; the cases were consolidated.
- The district court held the Democratic Party had standing, but ruled § 9012(f) unconstitutional on its face under the First Amendment; the parties appealed directly to the Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether the Democratic Party and its national committee had statutory standing to sue independent committees under 26 U.S.C. § 9011(b)(1).
2. Whether 26 U.S.C. § 9012(f)’s criminal limit on independent expenditures above $1,000 supporting a publicly financed presidential candidate violates the First Amendment rights of speech and association.

## Decision

- The Court held the Democratic Party and Democratic National Committee lacked standing to bring a private enforcement action against other private parties under § 9011(b)(1).
- The Court held § 9012(f) unconstitutional because it criminally restricted independent expenditures that constitute core political speech.
- The Court affirmed the judgment invalidating § 9012(f) while reversing the ruling that the Democratic Party had standing.

## Legal Principles

- Independent expenditures advocating the election of a candidate are protected political expression at the core of the First Amendment.
- A flat criminal cap on independent expenditures is a direct restraint on political expression and is subject to strict constitutional review.
- The anticorruption interest that can justify limits on contributions to candidates does not, without more, justify broad limits on truly independent expenditures.
- The government may not suppress independent political spending merely to protect public confidence in, or the perceived integrity of, a public-financing system.
- Where Congress assigns exclusive civil enforcement authority to the FEC, statutory provisions authorizing certain actions will not be read to permit private suits that interfere with that exclusive enforcement role.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court ruled that the Democratic Party could not privately sue to enforce the Fund Act against independent committees and struck down § 9012(f)’s $1,000 criminal cap on independent expenditures supporting publicly financed presidential candidates as an unconstitutional restriction on First Amendment speech and association.


FEC v. Nat’l Conservative Political Action Comm., 470 U.S. 480 (1985)