Write A Case Brief. 38-1 Federal Election Comm N V Harvard
Atavia Vigil
Case Brief 38-1 Federal Election Comm’n v. Beaumont
Facts
In 2003, the corporation North Carolina Right to Life, Inc. sued the federal Election Commission claiming that that two FEC regulations were unconstitutional.
First regulation challenged the one that stops corporations from making contributions
Second regulation was the one that provides an exemption from the ban for corporate contributions for particular nonprofit corporations.
NCRL believes that they met the exemption to be considered a “qualified nonprofit corporation” besides the fact that it accepted small corporate donations and dealt in “minor business activities incidental and related to its advocacy of issues.”
Issues
NCRL argues that on a class-wide basis “[Massachusetts Citizens for Life]- type corporations pose no potential of threat to the …show more content…
NCRL argued that its officers were subject to liability as criminals and thus, their first amendent rights were suppressed.
Decision
The generalization about NCRL’s argument regarding “Massachusetts Citizens for Life” does not hold up in court. Nonprofit advocacy corporations, moreover, no less susceptible than traditional business companies to misuse as conduits for circumventing the contribution limits imposed on individuals.
The argument regarding the ban on its contribution overlooks the basic premise they have followed in setting First Amendment standards for reviewing political financial restrictions.
NCRL cannot prevail, then, simply arguing that a ban on an advocacy corporation’s direct contributions is bad tailoring.
A unanimous court in National Right to Work did not think the regulatory burdens on PAC’s, including restrictions on their ability to solicit funds, rendered a PAC unconstitutional as an advocacy corporation’s sole avenue for making political contributions.
The court ruled a
Case Brief 38-1 Federal Election Comm’n v. Beaumont
Facts
In 2003, the corporation North Carolina Right to Life, Inc. sued the federal Election Commission claiming that that two FEC regulations were unconstitutional.
First regulation challenged the one that stops corporations from making contributions
Second regulation was the one that provides an exemption from the ban for corporate contributions for particular nonprofit corporations.
NCRL believes that they met the exemption to be considered a “qualified nonprofit corporation” besides the fact that it accepted small corporate donations and dealt in “minor business activities incidental and related to its advocacy of issues.”
Issues
NCRL argues that on a class-wide basis “[Massachusetts Citizens for Life]- type corporations pose no potential of threat to the …show more content…
NCRL argued that its officers were subject to liability as criminals and thus, their first amendent rights were suppressed.
Decision
The generalization about NCRL’s argument regarding “Massachusetts Citizens for Life” does not hold up in court. Nonprofit advocacy corporations, moreover, no less susceptible than traditional business companies to misuse as conduits for circumventing the contribution limits imposed on individuals.
The argument regarding the ban on its contribution overlooks the basic premise they have followed in setting First Amendment standards for reviewing political financial restrictions.
NCRL cannot prevail, then, simply arguing that a ban on an advocacy corporation’s direct contributions is bad tailoring.
A unanimous court in National Right to Work did not think the regulatory burdens on PAC’s, including restrictions on their ability to solicit funds, rendered a PAC unconstitutional as an advocacy corporation’s sole avenue for making political contributions.
The court ruled a