Expressly advocating means any communication that—(a) Uses phrases such as “vote for the President,” “re-elect your Congressman,” “support the Democratic nominee,” “cast your ballot for the Republican challenger for U.S. Senate in Georgia,” “Smith for Congress,” “Bill McKay in '94,” “vote Pro-Life” or “vote Pro-Choice” accompanied by a listing of clearly identified candidates described as Pro-Life or Pro-Choice, “vote against Old Hickory,” “defeat” accompanied by a picture of one or more candidate(s), “reject the incumbent,” or communications of campaign slogan(s) or individual word(s), which in context can have no other reasonable meaning than to urge the election or defeat of one or more clearly identified candidate(s), such as posters, bumper stickers, advertisements, etc. which say “Nixon's the One,” “Carter '76,” “Reagan/Bush” or “Mondale!”; or
(b) When taken as a whole and with limited reference to external events, such as the proximity to the election, could only be interpreted by a reasonable person as containing advocacy of the election or defeat of one or more clearly identified candidate(s) because—
(1) The electoral portion of the communication is unmistakable, unambiguous, and suggestive of only one meaning; and
(2) Reasonable minds could not differ as to whether it encourages actions to elect or defeat one or more clearly identified candidate(s) or encourages some other kind of action.
[60 FR 35304, July 6, 1995]
Notes of Decisions
Real Truth About Obama, Inc. v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 575 F.3d 342 (4th Cir. 2009).
· cites it 5× “(“Real Truth”) commenced this action against the Federal Election Commission and the Department of Justice, challenging the constitutionality of three Federal Election Commission regulations — 11 C.F.R. §§ 100.22 (b), 100.57(a), and 114.”
Real Truth About Abortion, Inc. v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 681 F.3d 544 (4th Cir. 2012).
· cites it 8× “Real Truth asserts that it is not subject to regulation but fears the Commission could take steps to regulate it because of the vagueness of 11 C.F.R. § 100.22 (b) and the *546 policy of the Commission to determine whether an organization is a PAC by applying the “major purpose”…”
Free Speech v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 720 F.3d 788 (10th Cir. 2013).
· cites it 8× “§ 441d(a); and the FEC’s policy of determining political committee status on a case-by-case basis. 1 Accordingly, this court adopts the district court’s analysis as the opinion of this court and orders the district court’s mem *791 orandum decision and order granting the FEC’s…”
Elections Bd. v. Wisconsin Mfrs. & Com., 597 N.W.2d 721 (Wis. 1999).
· cites it 8× “The Board claims in its brief in this court that it never argued that the five Crawford criteria should be used in determining whether the ads were express advocacy. In any event, we are thoroughly satisfied that in this court, the Board argued in favor of a context-based…”
Virginia Soc'y for Human Life, Inc. v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 263 F.3d 379 (4th Cir. 2001).
· cites it 31× “(VSHL) sued the Federal Election Commission (FEC), seeking a declaration that 11 C.F.R. § 100.22 (b), a regulation defining “express advocacy” for purposes of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), is unconstitutional.”
McConnell v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 251 F. Supp. 2d 176 (D.D.C. 2003).
· cites it 3× “With regard to the cases where courts struck down FEC regulations, the Commission, and not Congress, had sought to define express advocacy broader than the Supreme Court had permitted in Buckley.”
Right to Life of Dutchess Cnty., Inc. v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 6 F. Supp. 2d 248 (S.D.N.Y. 1998).
· cites it 11× “(“RLDC”) seeks (1) a declaratory judgment that the FEC’s definition of “express advocacy” ■ is invalid either because it is unconstitutionally overbroad in that it prohibits protected First Amendment speech, or because it is unconstitutionally .”
Comm. FOR Just. & FAIRNESS v. Arizona Sec'y of State's Off., 332 P.3d 94 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 6× “3d at 795 (comparing the WRTL test to 11 C.F.R. § 100.22 (b), which provides that a communication expressly advocates if it “could only be interpreted by a reasonable person as containing advocacy of the election or defeat of one or more clearly identified candidate(s)”).”
Jordan v. Sosa, 654 F.3d 1012 (10th Cir. 2011).
“2001) (“The broad scope of the injunction has the effect of precluding other circuits from ruling on the constitutionality of 11 C.F.R. § 100.22 (b). Such a result conflicts with the principle that a federal court of appeals’s decision is only binding within its circuit.”
— 11 C.F.R. § 100.22(b) — 2 cases
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.