## Facts

- NRA-PVF (a separate segregated fund) sent two mass fundraising mailings to NRA members in March and July 1988 costing $415,744.72.
- NRA-ILA (the NRA’s lobbying arm) initially paid the vendors for the mailings; this payment was permitted as PAC solicitation/administrative support.
- On August 1, 1988, NRA-PVF reimbursed NRA-ILA for the full mailing cost.
- On October 20, 1988, 81 days after the reimbursement, NRA-ILA paid NRA-PVF $415,744.72, effectively returning the reimbursement; NRA-PVF used the funds near the election to make independent expenditures and contributions.
- The FEC sued, alleging the October 20 transfer was an unlawful corporate contribution barred by 2 U.S.C. § 441b(a), not a permissible reimbursement under 11 C.F.R. § 114.5(b)(3).
- The district court held the transfer violated FECA, imposed a $40,000 civil penalty, and ordered future compliance with the reimbursement regulation.
- On appeal, NRA-ILA and NRA-PVF argued both that the transaction was lawful under FECA and that the FEC’s structure violated separation of powers because two congressional officers served as nonvoting ex officio members.

## Issues

1. Whether the presence of the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House as nonvoting ex officio members of the FEC violates separation of powers, depriving the FEC of authority to bring civil enforcement actions.
2. Whether the October 20, 1988 transfer from NRA-ILA to NRA-PVF was a permissible reimbursement of solicitation expenses or a prohibited corporate contribution under FECA and applicable regulations.

## Decision

- The D.C. Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment and penalty.
- The court held the FEC lacked authority to bring the enforcement action because its composition violated separation of powers.
- The court treated the inclusion of the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House as congressional “agents” whose participation in an executive enforcement body was constitutionally impermissible, even without voting power.
- Because the constitutional defect was dispositive, the court declined to resolve the statutory and regulatory merits of whether the payment violated FECA.

## Legal Principles

- An independent agency exercising executive functions, including investigation and civil enforcement, may not include congressional officers in its internal membership in a manner that permits legislative-branch participation in law execution.
- Separation of powers concerns can arise from nonvoting membership when legislative officers have access to and participation in an agency’s deliberations affecting enforcement and policy.
- When an agency is unconstitutionally structured in a way that compromises separation of powers, it may lack authority to initiate or maintain an enforcement action, requiring reversal without reaching underlying statutory questions.

## Conclusion

The D.C. Circuit vacated liability and penalties because the FEC’s structure—placing two congressional officers on the Commission as ex officio members—violated separation of powers and deprived the agency of authority to prosecute the case, leaving the alleged FECA violation unresolved on the merits.


Fed. Election Comm’n v. Nat’l Rifle Ass’n Pol. Victory Fund, 6 F.3d 821 (D.C. Cir. 1993)