## Facts

- Federal law barred corporations from using general treasury funds for expenditures made “in connection with” federal elections, instead requiring spending through a separate segregated fund (PAC).
- Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Inc. (MCFL) was a nonprofit, nonstock corporation organized to promote anti-abortion political ideas; it had no shareholders and was not organized for profit.
- Shortly before a Massachusetts primary, MCFL published and distributed a “Special Edition” flyer urging readers to “vote pro-life” and identifying candidates’ positions on abortion.
- The Special Edition was distributed far more widely than MCFL’s normal newsletter and reached many noncontributors and members of the general public.
- MCFL paid roughly $9,800 for printing and distribution from its general treasury funds, not through a PAC.
- After an administrative complaint, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) filed a civil enforcement action seeking penalties and injunctive relief.
- The lower courts concluded the publication was covered by the statute but held the statute unconstitutional as applied to MCFL’s independent spending.

## Issues

1. Whether MCFL’s Special Edition was a prohibited corporate “expenditure” made “in connection with” a federal election under the federal campaign finance statute.
2. Whether applying the corporate treasury-fund spending ban (and PAC requirement) to MCFL’s independent election-related spending violated the First Amendment.

## Decision

- The Court held that MCFL’s Special Edition was an “expenditure” made for the purpose of influencing a federal election and therefore fell within the statutory prohibition.
- The Court rejected use of the statute’s press exemption for the Special Edition, treating it as a campaign-style flyer rather than part of a regular press function.
- The Court nevertheless affirmed judgment for MCFL, holding the corporate spending restriction unconstitutional as applied to MCFL’s independent expenditures.
- The Court reasoned that MCFL’s organizational form and funding did not implicate the principal governmental interests supporting corporate expenditure restrictions for business corporations.
- The Court found that forcing this type of nonprofit to speak only through a PAC imposed substantial administrative and financial burdens on its political expression.

## Legal Principles

- Independent expenditures receive strong First Amendment protection; restrictions on such expenditures require a sufficiently weighty justification.
- Government interests supporting corporate expenditure limits aimed at preventing political distortion from aggregated economic wealth may justify regulation of business corporations but do not automatically extend to all corporations.
- An ideological nonprofit corporation that (1) is formed to promote political ideas, (2) does not engage in business activities, (3) has no shareholders or similar equity holders, and (4) is not established by, and does not accept contributions from, business corporations or labor unions cannot be subject to the corporate treasury-fund spending ban for independent expenditures.
- Requiring such an organization to use a PAC for independent election advocacy can impose burdens that render the restriction unconstitutional as applied.

## Conclusion

The Court concluded that MCFL’s election flyer fell within the statutory definition of a prohibited corporate election expenditure, but held that enforcing the corporate treasury-fund spending ban and PAC requirement against this type of ideological nonprofit’s independent advocacy violated the First Amendment.


Fed. Election Comm’n v. Mass. Citizens for Life, Inc., 479 U.S. 238 (1986)