USCA1 Opinion
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 96-1532
MAINE RIGHT TO LIFE COMMITTEE, INC., ET AL.,
Plaintiffs - Appellees,
v.
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISION, ET AL.,
Defendant - Appellant.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE
[Hon. D. Brock Hornby, U.S. District Judge] ___________________
____________________
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge, ___________
Cyr and Boudin, Circuit Judges. ______________
_____________________
David Kolker, Attorney, with whom Lawrence M. Noble, General ____________ _________________
Counsel, and Richard B. Bader, Associate General Counsel, were on ________________
brief for appellant Federal Election Commission.
Dennis M. Flannery, Ankur J. Goel, Wilmer, Cutler & ____________________ ________________ __________________
Pickering and Donald J. Simon on brief for Common Cause, amicus _________ ________________
curiae.
James Bopp, Jr., with whom Paul R. Scholle, Bopp, Coleson & ________________ _______________ _______________
Bostrom, Daniel M. Snow and Pierce Atwood were on brief for _______ _______________ ______________
appellees.
____________________
October 18, 1996
____________________
Per Curiam. Defendant-appellant, the Federal Election Per Curiam. ___________
Commission ("FEC"), appeals the decision of the district court
that "11 C.F.R. 100.22(b) is contrary to the [Federal Election
Campaign Act (FECA), 2 U.S.C. 431-55,] as the Supreme Court
and the First Circuit Court of Appeals have interpreted it and
thus beyond the power of the FEC." Maine Right to Life _____________________
Committee, Inc. v. Federal Election Commission, 914 F. Supp. 8, _______________ ____________________________
13 (D. Me. 1996). Appellant argues that the "express advocacy"
regulation promulgated in 100.22(b) is facially reasonable,
advances compelling governmental interests, and is entitled to
deference.
After a careful evaluation of the parties' briefs and
the record on appeal, we affirm for substantially the reasons set
forth in the district court opinion. See Maine Right to Life ___ ____________________
Committee, 914 F. Supp. 8; see also Federal Election Commission _________ ________ ____________________________
v. Christian Action Network, 894 F. Supp. 946 (W.D. Va. 1995), ________________________
aff'd per curiam, 92 F.3d 1178 (table), No. 95-2600, (4th Cir. _________________
Aug. 2, 1996) (unpublished disposition) (granting defendants'
motion to dismiss on the grounds that the complained-of actions
did not constitute violations of FECA, and the FEC lacked
jurisdiction to bring suit).
Costs to appellee.
Affirmed. ________
-2- -2-