2 U.S.C. § 437f
Transferred
[transferred]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 40
cases, 1975–2013 · leading case: McConnell v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 251 F. Supp. 2d 176 (D.D.C. 2003).
McConnell v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 251 F. Supp. 2d 176 (D.D.C. 2003). “In addition, as described in more detail below, see infra at 167, any issues arising from the enforcement of these regulations can be challenged via lawsuit under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), or clarified through the advisory opinion procedure codified at 2 U.S.C. §…”
Off. of Pers. Mgmt. v. Richmond, 496 U.S. 414 (1990). “In numerous other contexts where Congress has been concerned at the possibility of significant detrimental reliance on the erroneous advice of Government agents, it has provided appropriate legislative relief.”
Buckley v. Valeo, 519 F.2d 821 (D.C. Cir. 1975). “191 There is, however, one aspect of Question 8(b) that we find ripe for adjudication — the issue of the power of the Commission to issue advisory opinions pursuant to 2 U.S.C. § 437f. Upon written request by an individual holding federal office, a candidate for federal office,…”
Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976). “See 2 U. S. C. § 437f (1970 ed., Supp. IV). Section 437f (a) of Title 2 accords only candidates, federal officeholders, and political committees the right to request advisory opinions and directs that the Commission "shall render an advisory opinion, in writing, within a…”
Martin Tractor Co. v. Fed. Election Comm'n Nat'l Chamber All. for Politics v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 627 F.2d 375 (D.C. Cir. 1980). “2 U.S.C. § 437f (1976). This section was amended by the FECA Amendments of 1979, Pub.”
Ramsey Clark v. Francis R. Valeo, Sec'y of the United States Senate, 559 F.2d 642 (D.C. Cir. 1977). “In addition, advisory opinions rendered by the Commission under 2 U.S.C. § 437f, which state a general rule of law not stated in FECA or in Subtitle H, “may be initially proposed by the Commission only as a rule or regulation pursuant to the procedures established by section…”
Nat'l Conservative Political Action Comm., John T. Dolan, Chairman v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 626 F.2d 953 (D.C. Cir. 1980). “2 U.S.C. § 437f (1976). The Act provides that “any person who relies upon any provision or finding of an advisory opinion in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (2) [of § 437f(b)] and who acts in good faith in accordance with the provisions and findings of such advisory…”
Unity08 v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 596 F.3d 861 (D.C. Cir. 2010). “The Commission concedes that “the issuance of an advisory opinion marks the conclusion of FECA’s advisory opinion process” and that the Commission’s refusal to issue a favorable advisory opinion therefore deprives the organization that requested it of a legal reliance defense…”
Martin v. Commonwealth, 96 S.W.3d 38 (Ky. 2003). “This issue was also raised in Buckley as a defense to a vagueness challenge, but was rejected because, at that time, the FECA advisory opinion statute, 2 U.S.C. § 437f (1970 ed., Supp. IV), afforded the right to request advisory opinions only to candidates, federal…”
Maine Right to Life Comm., Inc. v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 914 F. Supp. 8 (D. Me. 1996). “(The FEC will rule only on whether a particular utterance complies with the statute or its regulations, 2 U.S.C. § 437f(a)(1), whereas the whole point of the plaintiffs’ attack is that the very existence of the rule chills speech.”
Richard J. Orloski v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 795 F.2d 156 (D.C. Cir. 1986). “See 2 U.S.C. § 437f. This implies that Congress intended the Commission to fill in gaps left in the statute and to resolve any ambiguities in the statutory language.”
EMILY's List v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 569 F. Supp. 2d 18 (D.D.C. 2008). “The Supreme Court also noted in McConnell that “should plaintiffs feel that they need further guidance, they are able to seek advisory opinions for clarification, see 2 U.S.C. § 437f(a)(l), and thereby ‘remove any doubt there may be as to the meaning of the law.”
— 2 U.S.C. § 437f(C)(2) — 1 case
Matter of Vandelinde, 366 S.E.2d 631 (W. Va. 1988).
— 2 U.S.C. § 437f(a) — 3 cases
Ramsey Clark v. Francis R. Valeo, Sec'y of the United States Senate, 559 F.2d 642 (D.C. Cir. 1977). “In addition, advisory opinions rendered by the Commission under 2 U.S.C. § 437f, which state a general rule of law not stated in FECA or in Subtitle H, “may be initially proposed by the Commission only as a rule or regulation pursuant to the procedures established by section…”
Stop This Insanity Inc Emp. Leadership Fund v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 902 F. Supp. 2d 23 (D.D.C. 2012).
Faucher v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 708 F. Supp. 9 (D. Me. 1989).
— 2 U.S.C. § 437f(a)(1) — 3 cases
McConnell v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 251 F. Supp. 2d 176 (D.D.C. 2003). “In addition, as described in more detail below, see infra at 167, any issues arising from the enforcement of these regulations can be challenged via lawsuit under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), or clarified through the advisory opinion procedure codified at 2 U.S.C. §…”
Maine Right to Life Comm., Inc. v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 914 F. Supp. 8 (D. Me. 1996). “(The FEC will rule only on whether a particular utterance complies with the statute or its regulations, 2 U.S.C. § 437f(a)(1), whereas the whole point of the plaintiffs’ attack is that the very existence of the rule chills speech.”
McConnell v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 540 U.S. 93 (2003).
— 2 U.S.C. § 437f(a)(2) — 2 cases
Maine Right to Life Comm., Inc. v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 914 F. Supp. 8 (D. Me. 1996). “(The FEC will rule only on whether a particular utterance complies with the statute or its regulations, 2 U.S.C. § 437f(a)(1), whereas the whole point of the plaintiffs’ attack is that the very existence of the rule chills speech.”
John B. Anderson v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 634 F.2d 3 (1st Cir. 1980).
— 2 U.S.C. § 437f(a)(l) — 9 cases
McConnell v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 251 F. Supp. 2d 176 (D.D.C. 2003). “In addition, as described in more detail below, see infra at 167, any issues arising from the enforcement of these regulations can be challenged via lawsuit under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), or clarified through the advisory opinion procedure codified at 2 U.S.C. §…”
EMILY's List v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 569 F. Supp. 2d 18 (D.D.C. 2008). “The Supreme Court also noted in McConnell that “should plaintiffs feel that they need further guidance, they are able to seek advisory opinions for clarification, see 2 U.S.C. § 437f(a)(l), and thereby ‘remove any doubt there may be as to the meaning of the law.”
Fed. Election Comm'n v. Nat'l Rifle Ass'n of Am., 254 F.3d 173 (D.C. Cir. 2001).
United States Def. Comm. v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 861 F.2d 765 (2d Cir. 1988).
McConnell v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 540 U.S. 93 (2003).
— 2 U.S.C. § 437f(b) — 3 cases
Buckley v. Valeo, 519 F.2d 821 (D.C. Cir. 1975). “191 There is, however, one aspect of Question 8(b) that we find ripe for adjudication — the issue of the power of the Commission to issue advisory opinions pursuant to 2 U.S.C. § 437f. Upon written request by an individual holding federal office, a candidate for federal office,…”
Martin Tractor Co. v. Fed. Election Comm'n Nat'l Chamber All. for Politics v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 627 F.2d 375 (D.C. Cir. 1980). “2 U.S.C. § 437f (1976). This section was amended by the FECA Amendments of 1979, Pub.”
United States Def. Comm. v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 861 F.2d 765 (2d Cir. 1988).
— 2 U.S.C. § 437f(c) — 5 cases
Unity08 v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 596 F.3d 861 (D.C. Cir. 2010). “The Commission concedes that “the issuance of an advisory opinion marks the conclusion of FECA’s advisory opinion process” and that the Commission’s refusal to issue a favorable advisory opinion therefore deprives the organization that requested it of a legal reliance defense…”
Nat'l Conservative Political Action Comm., John T. Dolan, Chairman v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 626 F.2d 953 (D.C. Cir. 1980). “2 U.S.C. § 437f (1976). The Act provides that “any person who relies upon any provision or finding of an advisory opinion in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (2) [of § 437f(b)] and who acts in good faith in accordance with the provisions and findings of such advisory…”
Stockman v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 138 F.3d 144 (5th Cir. 1998).
United States Def. Comm. v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 861 F.2d 765 (2d Cir. 1988).
Unity08 v. FEC (D.C. Cir. 2010).
— 2 U.S.C. § 437f(c)(1) — 2 cases
Util. Workers Union, Local 369 v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 691 F. Supp. 2d 101 (D.D.C. 2010).
— 2 U.S.C. § 437f(c)(1)(B) — 1 case
Fed. Election Comm'n v. Nat'l Conservative Political Action Comm., 647 F. Supp. 987 (S.D.N.Y. 1986).
— 2 U.S.C. § 437f(c)(l) — 1 case
Shays v. United States Fed. Election Comm'n, 508 F. Supp. 2d 10 (D.D.C. 2007).
— 2 U.S.C. § 437f(c)(l)(A) — 1 case
Fed. Election Comm'n v. Nat'l Conservative Political Action Comm., 647 F. Supp. 987 (S.D.N.Y. 1986).
— 2 U.S.C. § 437f(c)(l)(B) — 1 case
Fed. Election Comm'n v. Craig for U.S. Senate, 933 F. Supp. 2d 111 (D.D.C. 2013).
— 2 U.S.C. § 437f(c)(lH2) — 1 case
Faucher v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 708 F. Supp. 9 (D. Me. 1989).
— 2 U.S.C. § 437f(d) — 1 case
United States Def. Comm. v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 861 F.2d 765 (2d Cir. 1988).
— 2 U.S.C. § 437f(e)(l) — 1 case
Fed. Election Comm'n v. Nat'l Rifle Ass'n of Am., 254 F.3d 173 (D.C. Cir. 2001).
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.