COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY, INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER APPROPRIATE RELIEF
Jurisdiction
1. This action seeks declaratory, injunctive and other appropriate relief pursuant to the express authority granted to the Federal Election Commission ("Commission" or "FEC") by the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended ("the Act") (codified at 2 U.S.C. Sections 431 et seq.).
2. This court has jurisdiction over this suit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1345 as an action brought by an agency of the United States expressly authorized to sue by an Act of Congress. See 2 U.S.C. Sections 437d(a)(6) and 437g(a)(6)(A).
Venue
3. Venue is properly found in the District of Columbia in accordance with Section 437g(a)(6)(A) as defendant The Christian Coalition can be found or transacts business in this district.
Parties
4. Plaintiff Federal Election Commission is the independent agency of the United States government with exclusive primary jurisdiction over the administration, interpretation and civil enforcement of the Act. See generally 2 U.S.C. Sections 437c(b)(1), 437d(a), and 437g. The Commission is authorized to institute investigations of possible violations of the Act 2 U.S.C. Sections 437g(a)(1) and (2), and has exclusive jurisdiction to initiate civil actions in the United States district courts to obtain judicial enforcement of the Act. 2 U.S.C. Sections 437c(b)(1) and 437d(e).
5. Defendant The Christian Coalition ("Christian Coalition" or "the Corporation") is a corporation incorporated under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia and transacts business in this district. Christian Coalition has affiliated state organizations, which are separately incorporated and over which it exercises control. Dr. Marion G. ("Pat") Robertson is Chairman of the Board of Directors of Christian Coalition. Dr. Ralph E. Reed, Jr. is the Executive Director of Christian Coalition and also is a member of the Board of Directors.
Administrative Proceedings
6. On February 27, 1992, the Democratic Party of Virginia filed a complaint with the Commission alleging that defendant Christian Coalition had violated the Act. The complaint was designated by the Commission as Matter Under Review ("MUR") 3475 for administrative purposes. On March 2 1992, the Commission notified Christian Coalition that the complaint had been filed and provided defendant with a copy of the complaint in MUR 3475. On March 18, 1992, Christian Coalition filed a response to the complaint with the Commission. See 2 U.S.C. Section 437g(a)(1).
7. On March 19, 1992, the Democratic Party of Virginia submitted a supplement to its complaint in MUR 3475. On March 23, 1992, the Commission notified Christian Coalition that the supplement had been filed and provided defendant with a copy of the supplement in MUR 3475. Christian Coalition filed a response to the supplement with the Commission on May 11, 1992.
8. On September 15, 1992, the Commission, by the affirmative votes of at least four of its members, found reason to believe in MUR 3475 that defendant Christian Coalition violated provisions of the Act, and initiated an investigation into those violations. Defendant was notified of the Commission's actions by letter dated September 28, 1992. See 2 U.S.C. Section 437g(a)(2).
9. On October 21, 1992, the Democratic National Committee filed a complaint with the Commission alleging that Christian Coalition had violated the Act. The complaint was designated by the Commission as MUR 3669 for administrative purposes. On October 27, 1992, the Commission notified Christian Coalition that the complaint had been filed and provided defendant with a copy of the complaint in MUR 3669. Christian Coalition filed a response to the complaint with the Commission on January 4, 1993. See 2 U.S.C. Section 437g(a)(1).
10. On July 20, 1993, the Commission, by the affirmative votes of at least four of its members, merged MURs 3475 and 3669, found reason to believe that defendant Christian Coalition violated provisions of the Act, and initiated an investigation into those violations. Defendant was notified of the Commission's July 20, 1993 actions by letter dated July 27, 1993. 2 U.S.C. Section 437g(a)(2).
11. On October 22, 1993, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that the Commission, as then constituted with two non-voting ex officio members selected by Congress, see 2 U.S.C. Section 437c(a)(1), violated the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers. FEC v. NRA Political Victory Fund, 6 F.3d 821, 821 (D.C. Cir. 1993) ("NRA"), cert. dismissed for want of jurisdiction, 115 S.Ct. 537 (1994). Specifically, the court of appeals held that Congress exceeded its authority by placing the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives, or their designees, on the Commission as ex officio members without the right to vote. 6 F.3d at 824. Thus, it concluded that the Commission, as then structured, lacked authority to prosecute an enforcement suit.
12. Following the NRA decision, the Commission voted on October 26, 1993 to reconstitute itself as a six-member commission without ex officio members, thereby conforming with the court of appeals' decision. The Commission also adopted procedures for revoting or ratifying decisions pertaining to open enforcement matters.
13. On April 5, 1994, the Commission, by the affirmative votes of at least four of its members, again found reason to believe that defendant Christian Coalition violated provisions of the Act. Defendant was notified of the Commission's actions by letter dated April 7, 1994. 2 U.S.C. Section 437g(a)(2).
14. The Commission's General Counsel notified defendant Christian Coalition by letter dated July 28, 1995, that the General Counsel was prepared to recommend that the Commission find probable cause to believe that violations of the Act by defendants had occurred, and provided defendants with a brief stating the position of the General Counsel on the factual and legal issues of the case. See 2 U.S.C. 437g(a)(3). Christian Coalition filed a response with the Commission on September 15, 1995.
15. On September 26, 1995, the Commission, by the affirmative votes of at least four of its members, found probable cause to believe that defendant Christian Coalition violated provisions of the Act and thereafter endeavored for a period of not less than thirty (30) days to correct such violations by the informal methods of conference, conciliation and persuasion, and to enter into conciliation agreements with defendants. Defendant was notified of the Commission's September 26, 1995 actions by letter dated October 2, 1995. See 2 U.S.C. Section 437g(a)(4)(A)(i)
16. Unable through informal methods to secure an acceptable conciliation agreement, the Commission, on May 7, 1996, determined, by the affirmative votes of at least four of its members, to authorize the initiation of this civil suit for relief in federal district court against defendant. See 2 U.S.C. Section 437g(a)(6). Defendant Christian Coalition was notified of the Commission's May 7, 1996 action by letter dated May 9, 1996.
17. The Commission has satisfied all of the jurisdictional requirements under the Act that are prerequisites to filing this action
Relevant Law and Statutory Provisions
18. 2 U.S.C. Section 441b, a provision of the Act, prohibits corporations from making contributions or expenditures from corporate treasury funds in connection with federal elections.
19. 2 U.S.C. Section 431(8)(A)(i) provides that the term "contribution" includes "any gift, subscription, loan, advance, or deposit of money or anything of value made by any person for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office."
20. For the purposes of 2 U.S.C. Section 441b, the terms "contribution or expenditure" also "include any direct or indirect payment, distribution, loan, advance, deposit, or gift of money, or any services, or anything of value . . . to any candidate, campaign committee, or political party or organization, in connection with any election" to Federal office. See 2 U.S.C. Section 441b(b)(2).
21. 2 U.S.C. Section 431(17) of the Act defines the term "independent expenditure" to mean "an expenditure by a person expressly advocating the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate which is made without cooperation or consultation with any candidate, or any authorized committee or agent of such candidate, and which is not made in concert with, or at the request or suggestion of, any candidate, or any authorized committee or agent of such candidate."
22. 2 U.S.C. Section 434(c)( 1 ) requires that any person other than a political committee who makes an independent expenditure in excess of $250 during a calendar year file a statement with the Commission providing information, such as the name of the candidate for whom the expenditure is being made, whether the expenditure is in support of, or in opposition to the candidate listed, and whether the expenditure was made in cooperation, consultation, or concert, with, or at the request or suggestion of, any candidate or any authorized committee or agent of such candidate See 2 U.S.C. Section 434(c)(2).
First Cause of Action
23. Paragraphs 1 through 22, inclusive, are incorporated herein by reference.
24. During the campaign periods prior to the 1990 1992 and 1994 federal elections, Christian Coalition made expenditures, directly from its corporate treasury and/or through its subordinate state affiliates, to influence the election of candidates for federal office. The Corporation coordinated, cooperated, and/or consulted with the campaigns of these candidates before making these expenditures and, therefore, they do not qualify as "independent expenditures under 2 U.S.C. Section 431 (17). These expenditures, discussed below, constitute in-kind contributions to the candidates and campaigns for federal office by a corporation in violation of 2 U.S.C. Section 441b.
In-kind Contributions to Bush-Quayle '92 Primary and Bush-Quayle '92 General Election Committees
25. Bush-Quayle '92 Primary Committee, Inc. was the authorized political committee of President George Bush and Vice President Dan Quayle during their 1992 campaign for the nomination of the Republican Party for President and Vice-President of the United States. Bush-Quayle '92 General Committee, Inc. was the authorized political committee of President George Bush and Vice President Dan Quayle for their 1992 general election campaign. See 2 U.S.C. Sections 431(4)-(6).
26. Christian Coalition, acting in coordination, cooperation, and/or consultation with the Bush-Quayle '92 Primary Committee, Inc. and the Bush-Quayle '92 General Committee, Inc. made expenditures for voter identification and get-out-the-vote efforts in connection with the 1992 elections for President and Vice President. In addition, Christian Coalition, acting in coordination, cooperation and/or consultation with the Bush-Quayle '92 General Committee, Inc. made expenditures for the preparation and distribution of approximately 28 million voter guides in connection with the 1992 election for President and Vice-President of the United States.
27. The expenditures described in paragraph 26 constitute in-kind contributions by the Corporation in violation of 2 U.S.C. Section 441b.
Helms for Senate Committee
28. Helms for Senate was the authorized campaign committee of Senator Jesse Helms for his 1990 campaign for election to the United States Senate from the State of North Carolina. 2 U.S.C. Section 431 (5).
29. Christian Coalition, acting in coordination, cooperation, and/or consultation with Helms for Senate, made expenditures directly and/or through its state affiliate to produce and distribute approximately 750,000 voter guides in connection with Senator Helms' November 1990 general election campaign. Acting in coordination, cooperation, and/or consultation with Helms for Senate, Christian Coalition additionally made expenditures directly and/or through its state affiliate to make approximately 29,800 telephone calls as part of a get-out-the-vote telephone bank operation in connection with the November 1990 general election in North Carolina.
30. The expenditures described in paragraph 29 constitute in-kind contributions by the Corporation to Helms for Senate in violation of 2 U.S.C. Section 441b.
Oliver North for U.S. Senate Committee
31. The Oliver North for U.S. Senate Committee, Inc. was the authorized campaign committee of Oliver North for his 1994 campaign for election to the United States Senate from Virginia. See 2 U.S.C. Section 431 (5).
32. Christian Coalition, acting in coordination, cooperation, and/or consultation with the Oliver North for U.S. Senate Committee, Inc. made expenditures directly and/or through its state affiliate to produce and distribute approximately 1,750,000 voter guides in connection with the 1994 general election campaign in Virginia. Christian Coalition, acting in coordination, cooperation, and/or consultation with this committee also made expenditures directly and/or through its state affiliate for voter identification and get-out-the vote-efforts in connection with the 1994 general election campaign in Virginia.
33. The expenditures described in paragraph 32 constitute in-kind contributions by the Corporation to the Oliver North for U.S. Senate Committee, Inc. in violation of 2 U.S.C. Section 441b.
Inglis for Congress Committee
34. The Inglis for Congress Committee was the authorized campaign committee of Robert Inglis in connection with his 1992 campaign for election to the United States House of Representatives from the Fourth District of South Carolina. See 2 U.S.C. Section 431(5).
35. Christian Coalition, acting in coordination, cooperation, and/or consultation with the Inglis for Congress Committee, made expenditures directly and/or through its state affiliates for voter identification and get-out-the-vote efforts in connection with the 1992 general election in the Fourth District of South Carolina. In addition, Christian Coalition, acting in coordination, cooperation, and/or consultation with the Inglis for Congress Committee, made expenditures directly and/or through its state affiliates to produce and distribute approximately 240,000 voter guides in connection with this election.
36. The expenditures described in paragraph 35 constitute in-kind contributions by the Corporation to the Inglis for Congress Committee in violation of 2 U.S.C. Section 441b.
J.D. Hayworth for Congress Committee
37. J.D. Hayworth for Congress was the authorized campaign committee of J.D. Hayworth in connection with his 1994 campaign for election to the United States House of Representatives from the Sixth District of Arizona. See 2 U.S.C. Section 431(5).
38. Christian Coalition, acting in coordination, cooperation, and/or consultation with J.D. Hayworth for Congress, made expenditures directly and/or through its state affiliates for voter identification and get-out-the-vote efforts in connection with the 1994 general election in the Sixth District of Arizona. In addition, Christian Coalition, acting in coordination, cooperation, and/or consultation with J.D. Hayworth for Congress, made expenditures directly and/or through its state affiliates to produce and distribute approximately 200,000 voter guides in connection with this election.
39. The expenditures described in paragraph 38 constitute in-kind contributions by the Corporation to J.D. Hayworth for Congress in violation of 2 U.S.C. Section 441b.
Second Cause of Action
40. Paragraphs 1 through 22, inclusive are incorporated herein by reference.
41. The National Republican Senatorial Committee ("NRSC") was and is a political committee as defined by 2 U.S.C. Section 431 (4). The NRSC is a national party committee dedicated to the election of Republican candidates to the United States Senate.
42. During 1990, Christian Coalition, acting in coordination, cooperation, and/or consultation with the NRSC, made expenditures directly and through its state affiliates to produce and distribute between five and ten million voter guides in seven states in connection with the November 1990 federal elections for the United States Senate.
43. The expenditures described in paragraph 42 constitute in-kind contributions by the Corporation to NRSC in violation of 2 U.S.C. Section 441 b.
Third Cause of Action
44. Paragraphs 1 through 22, inclusive, are incorporated herein by reference.
45. In three instances discussed in more detail below, Christian Coalition made corporate expenditures directly and/or through its state affiliates for public communications expressly advocating the election or defeat of clearly identified candidates for federal office.
46. Christian Coalition, through its subordinate state affiliate in Montana, made expenditures in excess of $250 during a calendar year for a two day conference open to the public held during January 1992. At this conference, Dr. Ralph Reed expressly advocated the defeat of United States Representative Pat Williams. Thus, the conference costs were independent expenditures by Christian Coalition in opposition to the candidacy of Representative Pat Williams, in violation of 2 U.S.C. Section 441 b. In addition, the Corporation violated 2 U.S.C. Section 434(c) by failing to report the costs of the conference as an independent expenditure in opposition to the candidacy of Representative Pat Williams.
47. During 1994, Christian Coalition made expenditures in excess of $250 during a calendar year for the preparation and distribution of a direct mail package entitled "Reclaim America" which included, inter alia, a cover letter and a scorecard.
48. The cover letter, signed by Pat Robertson, asserted that the enclosed scorecard would be an important tool for affecting the outcome of the upcoming elections. It stated: "This SCORECARD will give America's Christian voters the facts they will need to distinguish between GOOD and MISGUIDED Congressmen ...." The scorecard listed and characterized multiple issues upon which votes had been taken in the United States Senate in 1992, 1993 and 1994, and in the U.S. House of Representatives in 1993 and 1994. It stated the Corporation's position on each bill or amendment involved. Each senator's and representative's votes were listed as a "++" or a "-", followed by percentages. The scorecard stated: "A score of 100% means the Congressman supported Christian Coalition position on every vote. A score of 0% means the Congressman never supported a Christian Coalition position."
49. The title, "Reclaim America," the format and content of the scorecard, and the content of the cover letter together constituted express advocacy of the election or defeat of clearly identified candidates for federal office. The Corporation's expenditures for this mailing constituted independent expenditures on behalf of the candidates who received high scores on the scorecard, and against the candidates who received low scores, which violated 2 U.S.C. Section 441b. The Corporation also violated 2 U.S.C. Section 434(c) by failing to report the costs of this program as independent expenditures.
50. Prior to the July 9, 1994 primary election in Georgia, Christian Coalition, through its subordinate state affiliate in Georgia, made expenditures in excess of $250 during a calendar year for the preparation and distribution of a combination Congressional Scorecard and cover letter, which stated in part: "The only incumbent Congressman who has a Primary election is Congressman Newt Gingrich - a Christian Coalition, Inc. 100 percenter." The cover letter encouraged the reader to take the scorecard to the voting booth. The combination of the cover letter and scorecard constituted express advocacy of the re-election of United States Representative Newt Gingrich. Therefore, the expenditures in connection with this mailing constituted independent expenditures by Christian Coalition that violated 2 U.S.C. Section 441b. Christian Coalition also violated 2 U.S.C. Section 434(c) by failing to report the costs of this mailing as independent expenditures.
Prayer For Relief
WHEREFORE, the plaintiff Federal Election Commission prays that this Court:
A. Declare that The Christian Coalition violated 2 U.S.C. Section 441b;
B. Declare that The Christian Coalition violated 2 U.S.C. Section 434(c);
C. Enjoin The Christian Coalition from making similar corporate contributions and expenditures in violation of 2 U.S.C. Section 441b:
D. En join The Christian Coalition from violating 2 U.S.C. Section 434(c) by failing to report its independent expenditures:
E. Assess an appropriate civil penalty against The Christian Coalition for each violation found by the Court to have been committed by the Corporation, not to exceed the greater of $5,000 or the amount of the expenditure involved in the violation, see 2 U.S.C. Section 437g(a)(6)(B);
F. Grant the plaintiff Federal Election Commission such other relief as may be appropriate.
July 30, 1996
Respectfully submitted,
/s/
Lawrence M. Noble
General Counsel
(D.C. Bar # 244434)
/s/
Richard B. Bader
Associate General Counsel
(D.C. Bar # 911073)
/s/
Stephen E. Hershkowitz
Assistant General Counsel
(D.C. Bar # 282947)
/s/
Robert W. Bonham, III
Senior Attorney
(D.C. Bar # 397859)
Kenneth E. Kellner
(D.C. Bar. No. 419925)
Attorney
FOR THE PLAINTIFF
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
999 E Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20463
(202) 219-3690
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
In the Matter of
The Christian Coalition
MUR 3669
STATEMENT OF REASONS
COMMISSIONER SCOTT E. THOMAS
VICE CHAIRMAN JOHN WARREN MCGARRY
COMMISSIONER DANNY LEE MCDONALD
Though much will be said and written about the part of this case the Federal Election Commission ("the Commission") took to court, the real story is what got swept under the Commission's carpet. On July 30, 1996, the Commission filed suit against the Christian Coalition for making corporate contributions in violation of 2 U.S.C. Section 441b. Unfortunately, this action only came after the Commission split and failed to act upon the General Counsel's legal recommendation to file suit against the Christian Coalition for failing to register and report as a political committee in violation of 2 U.S.C. Sections 433 and 434.
We agree with the General Counsel that the Christian Coalition, which has raised and spent over a million dollars on behalf of federal candidates, must register with the Commission and publicly report and fully disclose its federal campaign activity--just as any other such entity would have to register and report with the Commission. Although Commissioners Aikens and Elliott argue that the Christian Coalition is simply an issue advocacy group, the record clearly establishes that the Christian Coalition-unlike other so-called "issue groups"- seeks to influence issues and public policy through the election of candidates to public office. We believe that the evidence detailing the purpose and breadth of the Christian Coalition's federal campaign activity is both overwhelming and irrefutable.
The Christian Coalition has every right to be involved in the political process as citizens and voters. In so doing, however, they must still play by the same rules as everyone else.
I.
The Federal Election Campaign Fund Act of 1971, as amended ("the Act"), defines a "political committee" as "any committee, club, association, or other group of persons which receives contributions aggregating in excess of $1,000 during a calendar year or which makes expenditures aggregating in excess of $1,000 during a calendar year." 2 U.S.C. Section 431(4). In construing this statutory term, the Supreme Court has held that an organization is not a political committee unless, in addition to crossing the $1,000 statutory threshold of federal contributions or expenditures, the organization is under the control of a candidate or its major purpose is the nomination or election of candidates to any public office. See Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 79 (1976); FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for life, Inc., 479 U.S. 238, 252, 262 (1986)("FEC v. MCFL"). Thus, once an organization has received more than $1,000 in expenditures or made more than $1,000 in expenditures and has met the major purpose test, it becomes a political committee pursuant to Section 431. Any organization that qualifies as a political committee must register with the Commission and file periodic reports of all its federal election receipts and disbursements for disclosure to the public. 2 U.S.C. Sections 433 and 434. A political committee is subject to limits when making expenditures in coordination with a candidate, but may make unlimited expenditures on behalf of a candidate if no coordination is involved. 2 U.S.C. Sections 441a(a)(1)(A), (2)(A), (7)(B)
The Act also prohibits "any corporation whatever" from making any contributions or expenditures in connection with any federal election and prohibits any candidate or committee from knowingly accepting such a prohibited contribution or expenditure. 2 U.S.C. Section 441b. In FEC v. MCFL, supra, the Supreme Court interpreted Section 441b to mean that expenditures for communications not coordinated with a candidate's campaign must constitute "express advocacy" to be subject to the Section 441b prohibition. Thus, a corporation may use its treasury funds to make nonpartisan, independent communications to the general public, including voter registration, GOTV materials, telephone banks, and nonpartisan voter guides. If, however, any of these activities expressly advocate the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate, or are undertaken in coordination with a federal candidate, thereby losing their independence, the corporate expenditures for those communications constitute violations of 2 U.S.C. Section 441 b.
The Act allows corporations to use their treasury funds to operate a separate segregated fund for political purposes. 2 U.S.C. Section 441b(b)(2)(c). The fund may solicit contributions from the corporation's stockholders, executive and administrative personnel, members, and the family members of such individuals. 2 U.S.C. Section 441b(b)(4). Such a fund is a political committee and, like other political committees, is subject to the Act's registration and reporting requirements. See 2 U.S.C. Sections 431(4)(B), 433, 434. A separate segregated fund's expenditures which are coordinated with candidates are subject to contribution limits, but non-coordinated expenditures have no limits.
For whatever reason, the Christian Coalition has chosen not to establish a separate segregated fund, as have other corporations, to carry out its political goals. Nor has it characterized itself as a "political committee" in its own right. Thus, it has long avoided any disclosure of its funding. At the same time, though subjecting itself to the ban of Section 441b, it has asserted that none of its actions qualify as coordinated or "express advocacy" activity. It has claimed the best of all worlds, in other words.
On February 27,1992, the Chairman of the Democratic Party of Virginia filed a complaint with the Commission against the Christian Coalition and the Bush-Quayle '92 Primary Committee ("Bush-Quayle Committee") with respect to an appearance and address by Vice President Quayle in November, 1991, at a political forum and workshop sponsored by the Christian Coalition. The complaint also alleged that the Christian Coalition is a "political group active in national politics, and especially active in supporting Republican candidates." Later, the Commission received an amendment to the complaint alleging that the Christian Coalition was also active in the 1990 re-election campaign of Senator Helms in North Carolina. This matter was designated MUR 3475.
The Office of General Counsel prepared a report for Commission consideration that contained a factual and legal analysis of the allegations presented in the complaint as well as responses to the complaint received from the Bush-Quayle Committee and the Christian Coalition. On September 15, 1992, the Commission unanimously approved the General Counsel's legal recommendations with respect to the Christian Coalition and found reason to believe that the Christian Coalition violated 2 U.S.C. Sections 433, 434 by failing to register and report as a political committee and Section 441b for using corporate funds to make contributions to federal candidates. The Commission based its finding on Christian Coalition 1990 and 1991 activities, which included voter guide and get-out-the-vote ("GOTV") programs in North Carolina, and the Coalition's November, 1991 forum in Virginia which was entitled "The Road to Victory." The Commission unanimously approved these recommendations by a vote of 6-0 and authorized the General Counsel to conduct an investigation of the matter.
On October 21,1992, the Democratic National Committee filed a complaint with the Commission similarly alleging that the Christian Coalition has "engaged in avowedly and predominantly partisan-and therefore impermissible-get-out-the-vote efforts, which it has conducted in coordination both with individual Republican candidates and with the national Republican committees." The complaint asserted that these activities violated Section 441b because they involved "illegal corporate expenditures made to benefit particular candidates and political parties" and that the Christian Coalition failed to comply with the registration and reporting requirements of Sections 433 and 434. In support of these allegations, the complaint pointed to Christian Coalition campaign activity in the states of North Carolina, New York, Montana, South Carolina, Florida and Pennsylvania. This complaint was designated MUR 3669.
On July, 20, 1993, the Commission voted to merge MUR 3669 and MUR 3475 and made additional findings. The Commission found reason to believe that the Christian Coalition violated 2 U.S.C. Sections 441a(a), 441a(f) and 434(b) by making excessive in-kind contributions to federal campaigns and not reporting them, and by accepting excessive contributions from the National Republican Senatorial Committee and not reporting them. Later, on April 4, 1994, the Commission revoted its reason to believe findings in order to conform to the court's opinion in FEC v. National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund, 115 S. Ct. 537 (1994).
In the aftermath of the reason to believe findings, the Office of General Counsel conducted a thorough and comprehensive investigation of the Christian Coalition's political activities. The General Counsel's Office reviewed thousands of pages of material received in response to document requests and interrogatories as well as over 120 video and audio tapes. The General Counsel's Office also conducted 17 formal depositions and a number of informal interviews.
After completing and reviewing the results of this investigation, the General Counsel recommended that the Commission find probable cause to believe either that (1) the Christian Coalition is a political committee, with corresponding registration and reporting obligations and limitations on its receipts and contributions to other committees; or, in the alternative (2) that the Christian Coalition is an incorporated entity which has made and failed to report prohibited contributions to political committees and candidates. On September 26,1995, the Commission voted to approve these probable cause recommendations.
When the statutorily required attempts at conciliation failed, the Commission authorized the Office of General Counsel to file a civil suit for relief against the Christian Coalition in United States District Court in connection with MUR 3669. Unlike the probable cause findings, however, there were not four votes to proceed on the alternative legal theories in litigation. Commissioners Aikens and Elliott voted to proceed only on the prohibited corporate contribution theory and not on the political committee theory.
II.
In a 192 page brief reviewing the results of its investigation into the political activities of the Christian Coalition, the General Counsel's Office exhaustively details the overwhelming evidence supporting its legal conclusion that the Christian Coalition is a political committee and should publicly disclose its campaign activity. It is not our purpose here to repeat, discuss and analyze each and every piece of evidence examined in that brief. We simply seek to highlight several of the more compelling pieces of evidence and explain why we believe it leads to the irrefutable conclusion that the Christian Coalition has been operating as a federal political committee within the meaning of 2 U.S.C. Section 431 (4)
As we explain above, an organization must meet two criterion in order for it to be considered a federal political committee. First, it must receive contributions or make expenditures in excess of $1,000 for federal election races. Second, a major purpose of the organization must be the nomination or election of candidates for any public office. The record in this matter indicates that the Christian Coalition easily satisfies both standards.
A.
The federal political activity of the Christian Coalition far surpasses the $1,000 threshold of federal activity statutorily required for political committee status. Based upon the evidence developed in its investigation, the Commission unanimously found probable cause to believe that the Christian Coalition made prohibited contributions in the amount of at least $1,450,420 in violation of 2 U.S.C. Section 441b. This included in-kind contributions totaling at least (a) $980,000 to the 1992 Bush-Quayle campaign; (b) $52,000 to the 1990 Helms for Senate Committee; (c) $61,000 to the Oliver North for Senate Committee; (d) $4,200 to the 1992 Inglis for Congress Committee; (e) $3,500 to the 1994 Hayworth for Congress Committee; and (f) $325,000 to the National Republican Senatorial Committee in 1990. In addition, the Christian Coalition accepted a $64,000 contribution from the NRSC for use in the Coalition's 1990 voter guide campaign.
The record plainly establishes that the Christian Coalition has received contributions or made expenditures aggregating well in excess of $1,000. Moreover, the factual record shows that this federal activity was not simply the result of some unintended activity with federal consequences or an isolated incident occurring in just one election cycle. Rather, the General Counsel's investigation indicates that the Christian Coalition conducted this federal activity in the 1990, 1992, and 1994 election cycles-the first three election cycles following the Coalition's creation in 1989. Based on this high level of federal financial activity, the Coalition has more than met the statutory definition of "political committee" found at 2 U.S.C. Section 431 (4)(A). The next question, then, is whether the Coalition's "major purpose" is campaign activity.
B.
In Buckley v. Valeo, supra, the Supreme Court expressed concern that the Act's definition of political committee "could be interpreted to reach groups engaged purely in issue discussion." 424 U.S. at 79. The Court did not want an issues organization that inadvertently spent over $1,000 on a federal candidate to be suddenly forced to register and report its activities as a federal political committee. To avoid such a result, the Court stated that an organization's major purpose must be for the nomination or election of candidates in order for that organization to be subject to the reporting obligations and contribution limitations of a political committee.
Although the Christian Coalition asserts that its major purpose as an organization is simply to discuss issues and influence legislation, the record establishes that the Christian Coalition is decidedly not a group "engaged purely in issue discussion." Id. Indeed, the record shows that the Christian Coalition seeks to achieve legislative success and political power through the election of like-minded candidates to federal office. Moreover, the Coalition has sought to accomplish its political goals through the building of a political organization on a precinct level which is more akin to a political party than an issue advocacy group.
Just as the Republican or Democratic Party seeks to advance its own and its supporters' ideology through the nomination and election of candidates, so too does the Christian Coalition. It seeks to promote its views and obtain political power through the electoral process. The Christian Coalition's self-described objective, as voiced repeatedly by its leadership at Coalition conferences and political training sessions, is to elect candidates at the local, state and federal level for the purpose of advancing its ideology. By its own admission,the Christian Coalition proposes to influence elections and unabashedly declares that it intends to become the most powerful political organization in the country by the year 2000.
Based on the overwhelming evidence before us, we conclude that the Christian Coalition's major purpose is the nomination or election of candidates to elective public office. The General Counsel's Probable Cause Brief painstakingly details the many Christian Coalition statements and actions which lead to this conclusion. See General Counsel's Brief at pages 13-162. Particularly compelling are statements made by the Christian Coalition itself-both by its leadership publicly and by the organization in its written materials.
In a recruitment and training video produced in 1991 and entitled "America at a Crossroads." Dr. Marion "Pat" Robertson, founder and chairman of the Christian Coalition, described well the political purposes and election-related goals of the Christian Coalition when he stated:
I believe that the Christian Coalition will be the most powerful political force in America by the end of this decade.
What is the mission of this organization? It is simply this. To restore Godly principles and Godly men and women to the government of the United States and every one of the fifty states.
To do this, we will achieve each of the following goals:
We will develop the ability to elect majorities in the U.S. Congress and the legislatures of at least thirty states, as well as the city councils, the city school boards and other local bodies.
We will become the decisive voice in at least one of the two major political parties.
We will build strong organizations in every state and Congressional district in America.
We will recruit at least 10 trained political activists in every one of America's approximately 175,000 precincts.
We will have more trained grassroots activists than both political parties combined and more than any other organization on the left or the right of the political spectrum.
We will reach 30 million voters for pro-family and conservative causes and candidates.
We will know who our supporters are, where they live, how they vote, and we will be able to get them to the polls on election day.
We will open an effective lobbying office with a research staff and a model legislative staff in Washington, DC, and then in each of the fifty states.
We will publish a monthly national newspaper, The Christian American, with a circulation of 10 million copies each month.
If the pro-family Roman Catholics and the conservative evangelicals will unite together, there is no candidate we cannot elect anywhere in the nation, and there is no cause in which we cannot be victorious.
General Counsel's Brief at 42-43 (emphasis added). The Christian Coalition certainly has the right to seek to "restore Godly principles and Godly men and women to the government of the United States and every one of the fifty states" by developing the ability to elect majorities in the United States Congress and the various state legislatures, just as the Republican Party has the right to seek to restore Republican principles and Republican men and women to the United States Government and the states through the election process. However, just as the Republican Party must follow the campaign finance law and report its financial activity as it seeks to accomplish its political goals, so too must the Christian Coalition.
At the 1991 "Road to Victory Conference," Dr. Robertson, gave a speech entitled "How to Turn America Back to God" in which he similarly discussed the mission and goals of the Christian Coalition. Once again, the election of candidates as well as the raising of money to influence those elections, were the central goals of the Christian Coalition:
Now what's the program? I have big goals.... There are 175,000 precincts in America. The precincts are where politics gets done, where the people live. Precincts, as you know, are neighborhoods. I want to see, by the end of this decade, ten keen, active members of the Christian Coalition in every single precinct of America, that's 175,000 activists.
Now the next thing we're looking at in the Christian Coalition is money. . You don't win elections if you don't have some money.
This year we will finish out with $5 million.... The goal in 1994 is $48 million. And the goal by the year 2000 is to have four times the current budget of the Republican National Committee which is $250 million.
Ralph, . . . your salary will remain the same. This money has to go for candidates, not for administration.
The next goal is to elect conservative, pro-family majorities in the legislatures of at least 35 of the states of the United States of America. And then when we get that we'll go on to fifty. We want to clean house on those.
The next we're looking forward to in 1992 is a conservative majority in the United States Senate.
We want to strive for the election of a conservative pro-family majority in the United States House of representatives by 1996. We might see it sooner, but 1996 is attainable.
Next, of course, we want to see the White House in pro-family Christian hands at least by the year 2000, if the Lord permits.
General Counsel's Brief at 41 (emphasis added).
In this speech, the Chairman and founder of the Christian Coalition went on to discuss the selection and use of issues by the Christian Coalition as a means of winning elections. Dr. Robertson demonstrated how the Christian Coalition must broaden its issues agenda in order to increase the Coalition's political influence and the electability of the candidates it supported:
What would happen if we had trained people in the precincts who would take the trouble to ask their neighbors and friends and people in the block of their precinct what their interests are? Not to go to them and say "We are the pro- life people" or "We are the church people." But to say, "What are your interests, what is it that concerns you?" And then to have the candidate address those issues and write back and to say, "My worker in your precinct told me that you are concerned about potholes! And I want you to know that I am the pothole candidate. I guarantee you that if I am elected I'll take care of potholes for you. "
By the end of this decade I want the Christian Coalition-it's a doable thing- to have a databank of 50 million voters according to their interests. And we can send letters. You've probably seen this already. In this senatorial race that we won [a state senate race in Virginia], we did this to 15,000 voters and Ralph personalized forty different paragraphs-to the gun owners, the hunters, this group, the other group, the senior citizens, he had something, and the candidate spoke to them on all those issues.
General Counsel's Brief at 102-103 (emphasis added). Once again, as Dr. Robertson's speech demonstrates, the Christian Coalition's central motivation is winning elections. It seeks to advance certain common aims by electing candidates who will pursue those aims once in office. It is also prepared to advance other issues-even pothole repair-if that is what it takes to help elect its candidates.
At this same 1991 conference, Ralph Reed, Executive Director of the Christian Coalition, reiterated the organization's emphasis on supporting and electing specific candidates to public office:
Folks, I really need your attention for this panel, because there probably isn't an opportunity in this country that exceeds our opportunity this year to elect more people like Jesse Helms and Bill Dannemeyer to the United States Senate.
General Counsel's Brief at 42 (emphasis added). Likewise, in an address to the Montana Coalition's "God's Building an Army" conference in January, 1992, Ralph Reed advocated the defeat of U.S. Representative Pat Williams in connection with the 1992 election for the U.S. House of Representatives in that state:
If we will move forward in unity and if we will be persistent, victory will be ours.
It will be ours in Montana and it will be ours all across America.... We're going to see Pat Williams sent bags packing back to Montana in November of this year and I'm going to be here to help you do it.
General Counsel's Brief at 87 (emphasis added).
The political mission, purposes, and goals articulated at the 1991 Conference were echoed at later Christian Coalition conferences and meetings.
For example, in his speech to the Coalition's 1992 "Road to Victory" Conference, Dr. Robertson once again described the dominant role he sought for the Christian Coalition in American politics:
[B]efore the end of this decade the Christian Coalition is going to be the most powerful political organization in the entire United States of America. And with that in mind our goal is not too immodest. Before the end of this decade I want to see us with pro-family legislators holding a majority of the legislatures and the governors' offices in at least thirty-five of our states. I want to see a clear-cut majority of the members of the House of Representatives that are going to be like Tom Delay and Dick Armey and those like him. And the same with the United States Senate.
And obviously I would like to see a conservative, pro-family President elected in 1992,1996, 2000 and beyond. We don't ever want to give up the White House anymore.
General Counsel' Brief at 46-47 (emphasis added). Significantly, the Coalition defines the election of state legislators, governors, Representatives (including specific Representatives), the Senate and the White House as its "goal." Given these electoral goals and its vision of being the "most powerful political organization in the entire United States of America," we find it difficult to fathom the Coalition as a group "engaged purely in issue discussion." Buckley, 424 U.S. at 79.
Printed materials of the Christian Coalition confirm the spoken views of its leaders and likewise indicate that the Coalition's major purpose is to promote and implement its beliefs through winning elections. As the Coalition's current Training Seminar Manual explains:
Politics is a game of numbers. If you get more votes than your opponent, you win. One of the reasons Christian efforts often fall short at the ballot box is that we fail to recognize that there is more to politics than just being on the right side of an issue. Being right is important, but to influence public policy in a democratic system, we not only have to be right, we have to be capable of ensuring that our candidates and issues will be victorious.
General Counsel's Brief at 53-54 (emphasis added).
In addition to the words and declarations of its leadership, the actions of the Christian Coalition provide further evidence that its major purpose is the nomination and election of candidates. The investigation in the instant matter revealed numerous instances of cooperation, consultation and coordination by the Christian Coalition in order to support specific federal candidates and political party committees. For example, executive director Ralph Reed's service on the Bush Quayle campaign's "pro-family steering committee" gave him direct access to and input into campaign strategy concerning how to reach "pro-family" voters. Similarly, President Bush and Dr. Pat Robertson held meetings in early 1992 to discuss the Bush-Quayle campaign. Having offered political advice to the Bush- Quayle campaign, and having received information regarding the Bush-Quayle campaign strategy through the involvement of its leadership in the campaign, the Coalition distributed approximately 28 million voter guides and made hundreds of thousands of get-out-the-vote telephone calls in connection with the 1992 Presidential election campaign.
Another example of coordination and support between the Christian Coalition's leadership and a specific federal candidate's campaign is found in the Coalition's support of the 1990 Helms for Senate campaign. Indeed, Ralph Reed is quoted at the 1991 Road to Victory Conference as having stated:
I had access to internal tracking and I knew Senator Helms was down by eight points. So Pat called me up and said, quote, 'We have got to kick into action.' Bottom line is, five days later we put three-quarters of a million voter guides in churches across the State of North Carolina and Jesse Helms was re-elected by 100,000 votes out of 2.2 million cast.
General Counsel's brief at 67 n.33 (emphasis added).
Coordination between the leadership of the Christian Coalition and the campaigns of federal candidates resulted in contributions to or expenditures on behalf of a number of federal candidates over the years. They included not only the Bush-Quayle '92 Primary and General Committees and the Helms for Senate Committee in 1990, but also the Oliver North for U.S. Senate Committee in 1994, the Inglis for Congress Committee in 1992, the Hayworth for Congress Committee in 1994, the NRSC in 1990, and both the NRSC and the National Republican Congressional Committee in 1991. The Coalition's contributions to these candidates and committees alone totaled over $1.4 million.
The Christian Coalition's ultimate goal, like that of a political party, is to obtain control of the levers of government so that it may then put into operation its policies and philosophies. The Coalitions' public statements, written materials, and actual election-related activities all demonstrate that its major purpose is to influence federal elections. The evidence is overwhelming and the conclusion inescapable. Accordingly, we voted to approve the General Counsel's legal recommendation to file suit against the Christian Coalition for failing to register and report its activities as a political committee.
III.
Despite all the evidence described and discussed in the General Counsel's Probable Cause Brief (and the above discussion only highlights a small portion of that evidence), Commissioners Aikens and Elliott voted against pursuing the Christian Coalition as a political committee. Relying on Akins v. Federal Election Commission, 66 F.3d 348 (D.C.Cir. 1995) reh'g denied, 74 F.3d 287 (D.C.Cir. 1996)("Akins"), they essentially argue that the Christian Coalition is primarily a lobbying organization and its campaign related activities are undertaken simply as a minor adjunct to its lobbying efforts.1 In support of this, they point to the fact the Christian Coalition has set legislative priorities, lobbies Members of Congress on legislation of concern, hires lobbyists with experience, and has hired directors of training and education, of voter education, of communication, of information systems, and of government affairs. Although conceding that "some [Coalition] activity might fall within the Act," Commissioners Aikens and Elliott conclude that "there is no evidence that the majority of its [the Coalition's] activity falls within the Act." Statement of Commissioners Aikens and Elliott at 6.
We think Commissioners Aikens and Elliott's reasoning fails for several reasons. First, they seem to argue that "major purpose" is arrived at as a matter of simple mathematical calculation, i.e., if an organization's expenditures for campaign activity exceeds 50% of the organization's overall budget, only then is the organization's major purpose considered to be campaign related. Their approach ignores the wealth of evidence that the primary objective of the Christian Coalition is to influence elections. Whenever legislation or lobbying is mentioned as an objective, it is a lesser goal. The organizational structure by precinct level, the constant references to voters and elections, and the statements of Christian Coalition leaders leave no doubt about the major purpose of the respondent.
Second, Commissioners Aikens and Elliott's argument that the Christian Coalition engages in a number of other activities, thus proving that its "core purpose" is not the election or defeat of federal candidates, goes too far. Under this theory, many federal political committees could avoid disclosure simply by adding a lobbying office, a government affairs office, and a public affairs office. Indeed, the Republican and Democratic national party committees could readily contend that they do not have to register as political committees because they too engage in many activities other than those on behalf of candidates for elective office. Like the Christian Coalition, the national party committees also seek to influence legislators and public opinion and have public relations and government affairs offices. Just as it would be unthinkable, however, to exempt the national party committees from public disclosure on such a basis, so too the Christian Coalition should not be exempted from its disclosure responsibilities on such grounds. Public disclosure is far too important to be so easily evaded.
Disclosure is the cornerstone of the Federal Election Campaign Act and the primary duty and responsibility of the Federal Election Commission. Commissioners Aikens and Elliott have shaken that foundation by shielding the scale and force of the Christian Coalition's federal campaign activity from public scrutiny.
IV.
In a speech given before the Christian Coalition of Montana, Christian Coalition executive director Ralph Reed described the Coalition's political campaign strategy, relying on the book The Art of War by Sun Tzu, a philosopher and warrior of ancient China. The speech sets forth in stark terms the Christian Coalition's objective of winning a "war fought with ballots" and the importance of "secrecy" in successfully waging that war:
The first strategy and in many ways the most important strategy for evangelicals is secrecy. Sun Tzu says that what you have to do to be effective at war and that's essentially what we're involved in, we're involved in a war. It's not a war fought with bullets, it's a war fought with ballots. But he essentially says that what you got to do is move secretively, move quietly, move at night and don't telegraph your position.... What I'm suggesting to you is that to be effective you must be secretive, you must paint your face and travel at night. You must move underground and don't stick your head out of the foxhole until the sun is beyond the horizon.... At every moment disguise your position and your truth from the enemy because the minute you stick your head up, you can be shot. It's a little bit like what was talked about today with respect to infiltrating the party, maybe infiltrate is the wrong word, but, in any event, influence the party, is that you don't necessarily want to show up and be identified as such because then you're an easy target to everybody else who's there who doesn't share your values.
General Counsel's Brief at 45-46 (emphasis added).
By failing to find that the Christian Coalition is a political committee, Commissioners Aikens and Elliott have guaranteed that the Coalition will continue to wage its "war fought with ballots" in the darkness and secrecy it has sought. As a result of their votes in this matter, the Christian Coalition will not have to register and fully report its federal campaign activity. The public will never really know where the Coalition gets or how it spends its money. Meanwhile, the Christian Coalition will continue to "travel at night" and "move secretively" toward its goal of becoming "the most powerful political force in America." Statement of Ralph Reed, Id. and Statement of Pat Robertson, General Counsel's Brief at 42.
7/30/96
Date
/s/
Scott E. Thomas
Commissioner
7/30/96
Date
/s/
John Warren MdGarry[sic]
Vice Chairman
7/30/96
Date
/s/
Danny Lee McDonald
Commissioner
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
In the Matter of
Christian Coalition
MUR 3669
Statement of Reasons
Commissioner Joan D. Aikens
Commissioner Lee Ann Elliott
On September 26, 1995, the Commission, by a vote of 4-2, found probable cause to believe that the Christian Coalition violated 2 U.S.C. Sections 441a(a), 441 a(f), 433 and 434 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended [the Act]. These probable cause findings were based on a theory advanced by the Office of the General Counsel [OGC] that the Christian Coalition is a political committee within the meaning of the Act. On that same date, the Commission, by a vote of 6-0 also found probable cause to believe that the Christian Coalition violated 2 U.S.C. Section 441b by making prohibited in-kind contributions to federal candidates or campaigns. This Statement of Reasons by the declining Commissioners sets forth our reasons for finding OGC's theory that the Christian Coalition is a political committee to be insupportable.
I
The primary debate in this case centers around the definition of "political committee" and the application of the "major purpose" test. On September 29, 1995, three days after the Commission vote in the Christian Coalition case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia rendered an opinion having significant precedential implications for all matters involving the major purpose test, and particularly for this matter involving the Christian Coalition. In Akins, et al. v. Federal Election Commission, 66 F.3d 348 (D.C. Cir. Sept. 29, 1995), the court noted:
We recognize that the Act has a broad definition of political committee; Congress intended to "address broadly the problem of political campaign financing," and wanted to "promote full disclosure of campaign-oriented spending" with [the Federal Election Campaign Act]. [Citation omitted]. The Commission, however, has construed the words 'political committee' narrowly and applied a major purpose standard in determining whether AIPAC was a political committee. Under this narrow interpretation, gleaned from case law, an organization is not a political committee unless, in addition to crossing the $1,000 threshold, it is under the control of a candidate or its major purpose is the nomination or election of a candidate. Buckley, 424 U.S. at 79, 96 S. Ct. at 663; FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, 479 U.S. 238, 252 n. 6, 107 S.Ct. 616, 624-25 n. 6 (1986). Accord FEC v. Machinists NonPartisan Political League, 655 F.2d 380, 391-92 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 897, 107 S.Ct. 397, 70 L.Ed.2d 213, (1981). A more expansive definition would be constitutionally dangerous due to interference with "fundamental First Amendment interests." Buckley, 424 U.S. at 23; 96 S.Ct. at 636; Machinists, 655 F.2d at 392.
Akins at p.353. We agree. We further agree with the Akins court that the concern of the major purpose test "is the core purpose of the organization itself, not the individual expenditure or contribution." Id. at 355.
The history of the Akins case is pertinent to our discussion. The court noted:
The FEC investigated the allegations and after a substantial investigation, the General Counsel issued a report regarding AIPAC's corporate expenditures, campaign-related activities and political activities. While the FEC found that AIPAC has made contributions that likely crossed the $1,000 threshold, it concluded that AIPAC is not a political committee under the statute because its campaign-related activities constitute only a small portion of its overall activities and are not AIPAC's major purpose. The FEC stated that AIPAC is primarily a lobbying organization interested in promoting U.S.-Israel relations and its campaign-related activities are undertaken as an adjunct to its lobbying efforts. Adopting the General Counsel's recommendations, the Commission found that there was no probable cause to believe that AIPAC was a political committee in violation of the disclosure and reporting requirements of sections 433 and 434 of the Act. The Commission did find probable cause to believe that AIPAC violated section 441b, which restricts expenditures and contributions by corporations, but unanimously voted to take no action.
Akins at 350. In this case, however, the Office of the General Counsel did an about face, recommending that the Commission find probable cause to believe that the Christian Coalition is a political committee, without adequately investigating or analyzing whether its campaign-related activities were undertaken as an adjunct to the "core purpose" of the organization.
In our view, application of the major purpose test requires at least an assessment of an organization's significant activities. Indeed, the nomenclature provided by the Supreme Court for the test, i.e. major purpose, supports our view. Absent comparison it is impossible to separate the major purpose from adjunct activity and, therefore, impossible to determine whether the "core purpose" of the organization is the election of specific federal candidates. If the "core purpose" of an organization is not the election of specific federal candidates there exists no constitutionally valid reason to interfere with First Amendment political speech by labeling an organization a political committee, with the attendant reporting requirements and other limitations under the Act.
Contrary to OGC's position, there is strong evidence suggesting that the "core purpose" of the Christian Coalition is not the election or defeat of particular federal candidates. The Christian Coalition is a non-stock, non-profit corporation existing and operating under section 501 (c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code. Article 3 of its Articles of Incorporation provide:
The principal purpose of the corporation is to encourage active citizenship among people professing the Christian faith. Other purposes are to support and uphold values and moral principles that accord with the holy Bible; to defend religious freedom; to enunciate an interpretation of the United States Constitution which is in accordance with the original intention of the framers of the United States Constitution; and to promulgate and teach concern for the sanctity of life, traditional family values, an economic system which fosters individual self reliance, opposition to tyranny, and faith in God.
According to the deposition of Mr. Ralph Reed, Executive Director of the Christian Coalition, taken by the FEC on March 28, 1995, one important method by which these purposes are achieved is by organizing a legislative presence in all 50 state capitals and in Washington, D.C. in order to represent Christians at every level of government. Reed Depo, p. 48. The extent of this legislative activity goes beyond self-serving statements and is apparent in the organization's infrastructure, directorships and personnel hiring practices. Here are some examples taken directly from the deposition transcripts:
* Mr. Reed discusses the purpose of leadership schools as "user friendly" training workshops that "would teach people the nuts and bolts of contacting their legislators" and "learning to track a bill through their local state legislature or city council. Reed Depo, p. 49. Concerning the December 1994 Board of Directors meeting, Mr. Reed testified that the Board discussed setting the legislative priorities of the Christian Coalition among such issues as: H.R. 6, an education bill (Id., p. 75); a lobbying reform bill (Id., p. 76); the Hyde amendment (prohibiting the taxpayer funding of abortion through the Medicaid program) (Id., p. 77); the Contract with America (Id., p. 77); and other legislative issues related to the budget (Id., p. 77).
* Mr. Reed also discussed the organization's efforts in lobbying members of Congress concerning legislation pending before Congress "such as the legislative calendar, when certain bills will come up and when they will be voted on" (Id., p. 82). Mr. Reed stated that in discussions with conservative Democrats and the Democratic Caucus he discussed issues such as welfare reform and also supported the version of the balanced budget amendment sponsored by Congressman Charlie Stenholm when the Republican Balanced Budget Amendment was defeated in the House (Id., p. 84).
* The Christian Coalition's directors include the national field director, Mr. Gribbin, who was "one of the top lobbyists at the National Federation of Independent Businesses and had an extensive knowledge of Capitol hill, of the legislative process, and of how to influence legislation with a grassroots network." (Id., p. 91). Mr. Gribbin developed the citizen action seminar, a relatively new program that has been in existence for only about a year, and is a citizen alternative to the leadership schools. (Id., p. 95). The citizen action seminar curriculum "includes how to organize your neighborhood, how to set up a moral or family concerns ministry in your local church, how to contact your elected representatives, how to identify other pro-family citizens who share your values in your neighborhood and community." (Id., p. 97).
* Another director is Chuck Cunningham, the director of voter education. Mr. Cunningham came from the National Rifle Association and was responsible primarily for state legislative issues there (Id., pp. 99-100). Mr. Reed notes that Mr. Cunningham also has legislative and lobbying responsibilities vis-a-vis the organization. (Id., p. 100).
* There are also directors of training and education, of voter education, of communication, of information systems, and of government affairs. The director of governmental affairs is Ms. Heidi Scanlon, "her job is to communicate with the grassroots people in the field about which legislation is pending before Congress about which we have an interest and to encourage them to contact members of Congress whose votes will be critical to the passage or defeat of that legislation. (Id., p. 105). Additionally, Mr. Wittman acts as a lobbyist and as director of the legislative affairs office and is "primarily responsible for overall legislative strategy and for working with members and staff on Capitol Hill on legislative matters of importance to the Christian Coalition. (Id., p. 107). Mr. Reed notes that "Ms. Scanlon has primary responsibility for overseeing the grassroots, and Mr. Wittman has primary responsibility for overseeing the internal strategy, the drafting of legislation, the working, day-to-day, of the legislative process." (Id., p. 108). Mr. Reed notes that two or three additional people have been hired in the legislative office. (Id., p. 111).
* Mr. Reed also discusses the role that the district coordinator or director plays. As described by Mr. Reed, "Their role is twofold. First of all, they have primary responsibility for activating telephone trees and a grassroots network on behalf of federal legislation pending before the Congress in the event that the representative from their district is considered a critical vote." (Id., p.190). As stated by Mr. Reed, if you are going to influence the votes of legislators, you have to have an organization in their district. (Id., p.190)
These examples indicate that the major purpose of the Christian Coalition is "to encourage active citizenship among people professing the Christian faith," and that, as suggested by Dr. Reed, the organization's legislative and campaign- related educational activities constitute only a small portion of its overall activities and are not the Christian Coalition's major purpose. This is consistent with Article 3 of the Christian Coalition's Articles of Incorporation which set forth the means by which it may achieve its purposes:
The corporation is empowered to achieve its purposes by all lawful means, including but not limited to education, the publication and distribution of literature, citizenship mobilization, the advocacy of public policy, and representation before public bodies.
II.
We do not disagree that there is evidence suggesting that the Christian Coalition engaged in prohibited campaign-related activity. We argue, however, that engaging in prohibited activity does not change the major purpose of the Christian Coalition. In fact, OGC notes that since the onset of the investigation in this case, the Christian Coalition has modified its programs in an attempt to focus less on election related matters. This is not a negative, but a positive, and indicates the organization's willingness to move away from prohibited activity, a move which would not be contemplated if that activity was its major purpose.
The operating budget for the Christian Coalition for 1994 was roughly $21 million and the same level was anticipated for 1995. The Christian Coalition has approximately 1.6 million members and is incorporated in virtually every state of the union. With an organization of this size, diversity of interests and grassroots focus, it is hardly surprising that some activity might fall within the Act, but there is no evidence that the majority of its activity falls within the Act.
To prove that the Christian Coalition is itself a political committee, we believe the "major purpose" test should have been more fully developed. This could have been accomplished by extending the depositions to the Chief Financial Officer, Judy Liebert, as well as to: Mr. Whitman, lobbyist and director of the legislative affairs office; Ms. Scanlon, director of the governmental affairs office; Mr. Cunningham, the director of voter education, and; Mr. Gribbin, the national field director. These individuals could have addressed the percentage of the operating budget allocable to the activities alleged to be prohibited as well as their view of the principal purpose of the Christian Coalition.
We favor the approach taken in the Akins case, and believe that any violations fall within 2 U.S.C. Section 441b. Complicating the Counsel's analysis is that to date the Commission does not have regulations which define the major purpose test, and explain how it will be applied. Absent regulation, issue oriented groups like the Christian Coalition are not on sufficient notice of the Commission's interpretation of the "major purpose" test, and can not identify, "with ascertainable certainty, the standard which we expect such groups to conform." See, General Elec. Co. v. U.S. E.P.A., 53 F.3d 1324, 1329 (D.C. Cir. 1995).
For the above stated reasons, we cannot find that the major purpose of the Christian Coalition is the election or defeat of Federal candidates. Therefore, the Christian Coalition, in our opinion, is not a Federal political committee.
/s/
Joan D. Aikens
Commissioner
/s/
Lee Ann Elliott
Commissioner
January 24, 1996
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
In the Matter of
Christian Coalition
MUR 3669
STATEMENT OF REASONS
(for Probable Cause to Believe a violation of law has occurred)
Commissioner Trevor Potter
There is no question that the Christian Coalition as an organization, and its members as individuals, have the constitutional right to engage in the political process. Every citizen and organization involved in electoral activity should be commended for that civic participation: in today's world it is often difficult to find citizens who will spend the time such participation requires. However, the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended ("the Act"), requires disclosure of such activity if it meets certain threshold levels and if it is in connection with a federal election. The law also restricts the sources and the magnitude of money utilized in federal elections. For instance, the Act prohibits corporate contributions in federal elections, while limiting individual contributors to a contribution of $1,000 per election per candidate, and multicandidate political committees ("PAC") to $5,000 per election per candidate.
Here, the evidence shows overwhelmingly that there has been a multi-year, multi-election, nationwide effort by the Christian Coalition to elect federal candidates without any disclosure of that spending, or the sources of its funding. I do not dispute that there are also legislative purposes for some of the Christian Coalition's activities. However, the evidence in the record demonstrates that it is first and foremost an organization with a distinctly electoral purpose. It has a nationwide precinct level grass-roots organization, which in many ways resembles a national political party apparatus. To achieve the Christian Coalition's public policy agenda it has chosen to coordinate activity with, and promote, specific political party organizations and candidates. This approach has brought the Coalition's activities within the definition of "expenditure" as defined by the Act.
In the Christian Coalition's training video tape entitled "Four Keys to Victory", founder and Chairman Pat Robertson clearly outlines the importance of motivating people at the precinct level to find and support candidates who share the views of the Coalition in order to ensure ultimate "victory." He then states that his goal is that by the end of the decade "the Christian Coalition will be the most powerful political organization in the United States." The purpose of that power, he says, is control of at least thirty state legislatures; majority control of the United States House and Senate; and the election of a U.S. President. To repeat, such political activity by U.S. citizens is entirely legitimate and the cornerstone of a democracy. However, the requirement that such activity be reported and disclosed to the public is also entirely legitimate, and is the cornerstone of the federal election laws.
The crux of this enforcement action is that the Christian Coalition should play by the same rules as everyone else in the political battlefield -- or at least every other interest group which supports and opposes candidates for federal office. Perhaps the activity engaged in by the Christian Coalition the last several years would have been perfectly legal if done through a political committee which disclosed its sources of income and its expenditures. However, by denying the public such information the Christian Coalition has operated in violation of the law, using the advantage provided by its illegal activity to advance its political goals. The extent of the activity cataloged in the Office of the General Counsel's investigation clearly shows that the primary purpose of the Christian Coalition is to serve as a political organization with the goal of electing candidates it supports. Given that status, there is no blanket waiver from the provisions of the Act that allows the Christian Coalition to avoid it's otherwise clear responsibility to register and report federal political activity.
Whether this matter is ultimately resolved by conciliation agreement or by Court order, I believe that the public interest will only be served by full disclosure of spending by the Christian Coalition to date, and assurance that the organization will abide by the law in the future.
/s/
Trevor Potter
Commissioner
October 5, 1995
ENDNOTE
1. In Akins, the D.C. Circuit upheld the Commission's no probable cause to believe finding that AIPAC had violated sections 433 and 434 by failing to register and report as a political committee. The activities and organization of AIPAC, however, are vastly different than that of the Christian Coalition. Unlike the Christian Coalition, for example, there was no evidence that AIPAC had made over $1.4 million in contributions to federal candidates: had organized in precincts in order to target voters; or had indicated, either in written materials or in statements by its leadership, that its goal was to become "the most powerful political force in America" and elect majorities in the U.S. Congress and the legislatures of at least thirty states, as well as the city councils, the city school boards and other local bodies."
