## Facts

- The Federal Election Commission (FEC) brought a civil enforcement action alleging a nonprofit corporation violated the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) during the 1990, 1992, and 1994 federal election cycles.
- The defendant produced and distributed voter guides and scorecards comparing candidates’ issue positions; the materials generally avoided explicit electoral directives (e.g., “vote for,” “defeat”) but tended to favor candidates aligned with the organization’s views.
- The FEC alleged the communications were financed with corporate treasury funds and amounted to unreported corporate “independent expenditures” because they expressly advocated the election or defeat of clearly identified federal candidates.
- The FEC also alleged the defendant made prohibited in-kind corporate contributions by coordinating the creation and distribution of voter guides and other communications with federal candidates, including alleged close ties to the 1992 Bush–Quayle campaign, and with party committees such as the NRSC.
- After discovery, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether the challenged communications constituted FECA-regulated “express advocacy” (and thus prohibited or reportable corporate-funded independent expenditures) absent explicit “magic words,” under a broader “clearly intended effect” approach.
2. Whether expenditures for public communications lacking express advocacy can nevertheless be treated as prohibited in-kind corporate contributions if they are “coordinated” with a candidate or political committee, and what “coordination” requires.

## Decision

- The court largely rejected the FEC’s effort to treat the materials as corporate-funded express advocacy, applying a narrow express-advocacy standard tied to explicit electoral advocacy or its functional equivalent.
- The court held that coordinated communications can constitute in-kind contributions even if the communication does not contain “magic words.”
- Applying a narrow, court-crafted definition of “coordination,” the court concluded the FEC’s evidence generally did not show the required joint planning or substantive campaign involvement in the content, timing, or distribution of the communications.
- The court granted summary judgment in significant part for the defendant, dismissing many central FECA claims, while not necessarily resolving every count.

## Legal Principles

- For corporate-funded independent communications, “express advocacy” is construed narrowly, generally requiring explicit words of electoral advocacy (or close functional equivalents), not a context-based “intended effect” test.
- “Coordination” can convert spending on candidate-related public communications into an in-kind contribution regulated by FECA, even if the message lacks express advocacy.
- “Coordination” requires concrete evidence of candidate or campaign material involvement—such as joint planning or substantive discussions about the creation, content, timing, or distribution of the specific communication—rather than mere ideological alignment, access, or generalized campaign awareness.

## Conclusion

The court limited FECA liability by requiring explicit electoral advocacy to regulate corporate independent communications and by requiring specific evidence of joint planning or control to treat outside-group communications as coordinated in-kind contributions, leading to dismissal of most claims concerning the defendant’s voter guides and related activities.


Fed. Election Comm'n v. Christian Coal., 52 F. Supp. 2d 45 (D.D.C. 1999)