SpeechNow.org Seeks Unlimited Individual Contributions for 527 Groups

Almost two years ago, a 527 organization called SpeechNow.org, asked for a court ruling that would have blocked the Federal Election Commission (FEC) from enforcing limits on contributions to the group. On Jan. 27, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit heard oral arguments in the case. The court must consider whether the group should be subject to an annual limit on donations from individuals and comply with disclosure requirements.

SpeechNow.org wants to collect unlimited contributions to help elect candidates who support free political speech. They argue that prohibiting contributions of more than $5,000 per year is an unconstitutional violation of free speech and association rights. After the group was initially formed in 2007, the FEC said it would have to register as a political committee, which requires contribution limits and prohibits corporate contributions.

News reports indicate that FEC attorney David Kolker faced skeptical questioning from appeals court judges as he sought to defend the contribution limits. The judges supposedly seemed sympathetic to SpeechNow.org's argument. The Associated Press [1] reports that one of the judges told the lawyer representing the FEC; "You don't seem to value the First Amendment very highly."

According to BNA [2] Money and Politics ($$), Kolker noted that the Citizens United ruling does not change limits on contributions to political parties. "Similar restrictions on non-party groups also should remain, the FEC lawyer said, because such groups can act as 'shadow parties' and be used to circumvent limits on contributions to candidates."

The judges suggested that since, "the Citizens United case established that independent expenditures do not corrupt candidates and thus cannot be limited under the First Amendment. It is not a long leap, the judges suggested, to assume that groups making only independent expenditures, like SpeechNow.org, cannot have their funding sources limited."

However, as the Supreme Court upheld disclosure requirements, judges in this case also seemed doubtful of SpeechNow.org's disclosure arguments. They are challenging the requirement that they would have to disclose as if the were a political action committee.

SpeechNow.org highlighted the recent EMILY’s List decision, which struck down regulations limiting donations to nonprofit political action committees that are used for campaign activity. The case also questioned the constitutionality of limits on contributions to independent political committees even though they were not challenged in the lawsuit.