# SpeechNow.org v. FEC (March 26, 2010) **Citation:** 599 F.3d 686 (D.C. Cir. 2010) — **not a Supreme Court decision** **Court:** U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (en banc) **Vote:** 9-0 **Decided:** March 26, 2010 (two months after [[Citizens United v. FEC]]) **Statute challenged:** [[Federal Election Campaign Act]] contribution limits to independent-expenditure-only political committees *SpeechNow.org v. FEC* is the case that **created the Super PAC**. The D.C. Circuit en banc held that contribution limits to political committees that make *only* independent expenditures — and never contribute to candidates or coordinate with campaigns — violated the [[First Amendment]]. The decision followed by two months from [[Citizens United v. FEC]] (January 21, 2010) and represented the direct doctrinal application of *Citizens United*'s reasoning to the political-committee contribution context. The case is included in the campaign-finance corpus despite being a D.C. Circuit decision (not Supreme Court) because: 1. The Supreme Court declined to review the decision, letting it stand 2. The decision's operational consequence — the creation of independent-expenditure-only committees with unlimited contribution capacity — is arguably **more structurally consequential** than [[Citizens United v. FEC]] itself 3. The pairing of *Citizens United* (allowing unlimited corporate spending) and *SpeechNow* (allowing unlimited individual contributions to IE-only committees) is what produced the modern [[Super PACs]] architecture ## The Holding SpeechNow.org was an organization that wished to receive unlimited individual contributions for the sole purpose of making independent expenditures supporting and opposing federal candidates. The [[Federal Election Commission]] had ruled that any organization receiving more than $1,000 in contributions for political purposes was a "political committee" subject to FECA contribution limits. The D.C. Circuit en banc, applying the logic of [[Citizens United v. FEC]] (decided ten weeks earlier), held that: - If independent expenditures cannot create *quid pro quo* corruption ([[Citizens United v. FEC]]) - And contribution caps are justified only by the anti-corruption interest ([[Buckley v. Valeo]]) - Then contributions to organizations that make *only* independent expenditures cannot be capped consistently with the First Amendment The reasoning was tight and the en banc vote was unanimous (9-0), reflecting how directly *SpeechNow* followed from *Citizens United*. The court ordered the FEC to permit unlimited contributions to IE-only committees. ## The Super PAC The post-*SpeechNow* operational structure is the **Super PAC** (independent-expenditure-only political committee): - Can receive **unlimited contributions** from individuals, corporations, unions, and 501(c)(4) entities - Must **disclose** its donors to the [[Federal Election Commission]] - Can make **unlimited independent expenditures** supporting or opposing candidates - **Cannot coordinate** with candidate campaigns (the coordination test is weak in practice but exists in theory) - **Cannot contribute** directly to candidate committees The Super PAC is the principal vehicle through which large individual donors and corporations express political preferences through unlimited spending. The principal contemporary Super PACs include the Senate Leadership Fund ([[Mitch McConnell]]-aligned), the Congressional Leadership Fund (House Republican leadership-aligned), the Senate Majority PAC (Democratic), the House Majority PAC (Democratic), and many candidate-specific or election-cycle-specific committees. ## The Dark-Money Pipeline The *SpeechNow* / *Citizens United* combination enabled the contemporary **dark-money pipeline**: 1. Donor contributes to a 501(c)(4) "social welfare" organization (no public disclosure) 2. 501(c)(4) contributes to a Super PAC (disclosure shows the 501(c)(4) as contributor, not original donor) 3. Super PAC makes unlimited independent expenditures (disclosed as Super PAC spending) The result is *partial* transparency — Super PAC spending is disclosed — while preserving original-donor anonymity through the 501(c)(4) layer. *SpeechNow* is the second link in the chain. ## Significance for the KB *SpeechNow.org v. FEC* is the case the public discussion frequently overlooks because it is not a Supreme Court decision. The public-attention focus on [[Citizens United v. FEC]] misses that *SpeechNow* did equally important structural work on the individual-contribution side. The contemporary [[Super PACs]] system depends on both decisions — *Citizens United* permitting unlimited corporate independent expenditures, *SpeechNow* permitting unlimited individual contributions to IE-only committees. Either alone would have produced a substantially different campaign-finance system; together they produce the post-2010 architecture. The lack of Supreme Court review is itself analytically significant: the doctrinal direction *Citizens United* set was already so clear that the FEC saw no point in seeking certiorari on a parallel case that would have been decided the same way. The Roberts Court did not need to decide *SpeechNow* — the D.C. Circuit's faithful application of *Citizens United* sufficed. ## See Also - [[Citizens United v. FEC]] — the parallel 2010 Supreme Court case - [[Buckley v. Valeo]] — the 1976 doctrinal foundation - [[Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act]] — the statutory framework being challenged - [[Federal Election Campaign Act]] — the underlying contribution-limits framework - [[Super PACs]] — the operational vehicle this case created - [[Dark Money]] — the parallel infrastructure - [[Independent Expenditure]] — the constitutional category - [[Federal Election Commission]] — the named defendant - [[Campaign Finance Timeline]] — full chronological view - [[Campaign Finance]] — Foundations hub