Maine Right to Life Committee, Inc. v. Federal Election Commission

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Aug. 2, 1996) (unpublished disposition) (granting defendants'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-