FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life

1986 United States Supreme Court case
Federal Election Commission v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Inc.
Argued October 7, 1986
Decided December 15, 1986
Full case nameFederal Election Commission v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Inc.
Docket no.85-701
Citations479 U.S. 238 (more)
107 S. Ct. 616; 93 L. Ed. 2d 539; 1986 U.S. LEXIS 26
Holding
Massachusetts Citizens for Life violated the Federal Election Campaign Act by distributing flyers asking voters to vote "for life" paid for with treasury funds, however that section of FECA itself violated the First Amendment.
Court membership
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Associate Justices
William J. Brennan Jr. · Byron White
Thurgood Marshall · Harry Blackmun
Lewis F. Powell Jr. · John P. Stevens
Sandra Day O'Connor · Antonin Scalia
Case opinions
MajorityBrennan (Parts I and II), joined by unanimous
MajorityBrennan (Parts III–B and III–C), joined by Marshall, Powell, O'Connor, Scalia
PluralityBrennan (Part III–A), joined by Marshall, Powell, Scalia
ConcurrenceO'Connor (in part and in judgment)
Concur/dissentRehnquist, joined by White, Blackmun, Stevens
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. I

FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life was a lawsuit filed by the US Federal Election Commission.

Massachusetts Citizens for Life

Massachusetts Citizens for Life was a nonprofit corporation, aiming to "defend the right to life of all human beings born and unborn," with advocacy activities.

It published a newsletter. In September, 1978, Massachusetts Citizens for Life distributed a "Special Edition" telling people to vote "pro-life" in the primary elections. It listed candidates for every office in every voting district in Massachusetts, and labeled each candidate as supporting or rejecting their views. The publication was distributed to a larger audience than that of the standard newsletter (the general public, not just supporters). It was financed by money taken from Massachusetts Citizens for Life's general treasury funds.

A Federal Election Commission complaint was filed.[who?] Claiming the "Special Edition" violated § 316; funds used from a corporate treasury to distribute a campaign flyer (of certain political candidates) toward the general public. The FEC determined probable cause of a violation of the statute. The FEC then led a complaint in Federal District Court.[1]

Case

In Federal Election Commission v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Inc., 479 U.S. 238 (1986), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Inc., a pro-life organization,[2] violated the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) by distributing flyers asking voters to vote "for life" paid for with treasury funds. The court also ruled that the FECA section that required corporate spending on political campaigns be done through political action committees (PACs) was itself a violation of the First Amendment rights.[3][4]

See also

References

  1. ^ FEC v. Mass. Cit. for Life, 479 U.S. 238 (1986).
  2. ^ McDonald, Matt. "Diehl Is Choice For Governor of Massachusetts Pro-Life Group; All The MCFL PAC Endorsements". NewBostonPost. Retrieved May 27, 2023.
  3. ^ Wermiel, Stephen (December 16, 1986). "High Court Overturns Law Requiring Nonprofit Political Groups to Use PACs". Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition. p. 4. Retrieved May 16, 2017 – via ProQuest.
  4. ^ "Federal Election Commission v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Inc". Oyez. Retrieved May 16, 2017.

External links

  • Text of Federal Election Commission v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Inc., 479 U.S. 238 (1986) is available from: CourtListener  Google Scholar  Justia  Library of Congress  Oyez (oral argument audio) 
  • v
  • t
  • e
Public displays
and ceremonies
Statutory religious
exemptions
Public funding
Religion in
public schools
Private religious speech
Internal church affairs
Taxpayer standing
Blue laws
Other
Exclusion of religion
from public benefits
Ministerial exception
Statutory religious exemptions
RFRA
RLUIPA
Unprotected
speech
Incitement
and sedition
Libel and
false speech
Fighting words and
the heckler's veto
True threats
Obscenity
Speech integral
to criminal conduct
Strict scrutiny
Vagueness
Symbolic speech
versus conduct
Content-based
restrictions
Content-neutral
restrictions
In the
public forum
Designated
public forum
Nonpublic
forum
Compelled speech
Compelled subsidy
of others' speech
Compelled representation
Government grants
and subsidies
Government
as speaker
Loyalty oaths
School speech
Public employees
Hatch Act and
similar laws
Licensing and
restriction of speech
Commercial speech
Campaign finance
and political speech
Anonymous speech
State action
Official retaliation
Boycotts
Prisons
Prior restraints
and censorship
Privacy
Taxation and
privileges
Defamation
Broadcast media
Copyrighted materials
Incorporation
Protection from prosecution
and state restrictions
Organizations
Future Conduct
Solicitation
Membership restriction
Primaries and elections


Stub icon

This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

  • v
  • t
  • e