 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1
.
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI TO USOC
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
COURT DEBATE REGULATIONS CORPORATIONS FEDERAL ELECTION APPEALS CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS EXPENDITURES BUSINESS CORPORATIONS AUTHORITY PETITIONERS CONNECTION VOTERS PARTIES RALPH NADER FECA FEC SELECTED CANDIDATES PRIMARY COMMITTEE PERMIT BUSINESS CORPORATIONS ELECTION CAMPAIGN ACT GREEN PARTY FIRST CIRCUIT CORPORATE FUNDS SPONSOR NATIONALLY-TELEVISED DEBATES FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION INDIVIDUAL VOTERS STATUTORY INTERPRETATION CHEVRON DEFERENCE |
i
QUESTION PRESENTED
Whether the Federal Election Commission's
Debate Regulations, which permit business
corporations to sponsor nationally-televised
debates that serve as campaign advertisements
used by selected candidates to solicit millions of
votes, exceed the Commission's authority because
the Federal Election Campaign Act prohibits
corporate contributions or expenditures in
connection with any federal election.
ii
PARTIES BEFORE THE COURT
The petitioners are Ralph Nader, Nader
2000 Primary Committee, Inc., Association of
State Green Parties and Green Party USA.
The respondent is the Federal Election
Commission.
PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING BELOW
In addition to the parties before this Court,
eight individual voters were plaintiffs below:
Heidi Becker, Medea Benjamin, Phil Donahue,
Mark Dunlea, Anne Goeke, Elizabeth Horton
Scheff, James O'Keefe and Susan Sarandon. The
court of appeals rejected their claims of standing,
however, and the individual voter plaintiffs are
not petitioners before this Court.
RULE 29.6 LISTING
Petitioner Nader 2000 Primary Committee,
Inc. states that it is a non-profit corporation that
has no parent corporation or stock owned by a
publicly held company.
Petitioner Green Party USA states that it is
a non-profit corporation that has no parent
corporation or stock owned by a publicly held
company.
SNIPPETS:
|
|
2
.
APPELLATE REPLY BRIEF
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
APPELLANTS COURT FEC STANDING DISTRICT COURT HARM PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS UNITED STATES JURISDICTION APPEALS NADER ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORTERS ELECTION COMMISSION JUDGEMENT VOTE CHOICE FIRST CIRCUIT FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION MASSACHUSETTS COMPLAINT FECA ILLEGAL DEBATE REGULATIONS COMPETITORS ADJUDICATION FEC ARGUES CPD STATUTORY AUTHORITY HEIDI BECKER MISCONSTRUES ACCORDING |
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 00-2124
__________________
HEIDI BECKER ET AL.,
PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,
v.
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION,
DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.
__________________
ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS.
__________________
Reply Brief for the Plaintiffs-Appellants.
__________________
Introduction.
The appellants submit this reply brief to respond to the claim by the Federal
Election Commission ("FEC") that the District Court did not have subject matter
jurisdiction to adjudicate the appellants' challenge to the Debate Regulations. The
FEC has attempted to recast the appellants' complaint and has misconstrued the
harm alleged by the appellants. The District Court properly rejected the FEC's
jurisdictional arguments and so should this Court.
Argument.
I. APPELLANTS HAVE STANDING TO BRING A CHALLENGE TO THE DEBATE
REGULATIONS .
The FEC argues that the District Court lacked jurisdiction because,
according to the FEC, none of the appellants has standing to challenge the FEC's
SNIPPETS:
|
|
3
.
APPELLATE BRIEF
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
DISTRICT COURT DEBATE FEDERAL ELECTION DEBATE REGULATIONS FEC PLAINTIFFS UNITED STATES FECA MATTER CORPORATIONS CANDIDATE DEBATES CORPORATE FUNDS VOTER EXPENDITURES FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION CONTRIBUTIONS MASSACHUSETTS MEMORANDUM VOTER APPELLANTS APPELLATE JURISDICTION PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES CONNECTION GET-OUT-THE-VOTE ACTIVITIES INDIVIDUAL VOTERS NONPARTISAN PROVISIONS RALPH NADER EXCEPTIONS MCFL |
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 00-2124
__________________
HEIDI BECKER ET AL.,
PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,
v.
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION,
DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.
__________________
ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS.
__________________
Brief for the Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Statement of Subject Matter and Appellate Jurisdiction.
The Dis tr ict Cour t had s ubj ec t m at ter j uri sdict ion under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to
cons ide r thi s cha ll enge to the l egali ty of t he Fe der al El ec tion Com mi ssi on's De
Re gulat ions under t he Fe der al El ec tion Cam pa ign Act, 2 U.S.C. § 441b, the
Admi nis tr ati ve Pr oc edure Ac t, 5 U.S.C. § 706, a nd the Dec la rat or y J udgme nt Ac t, 28
U.S.C. § 2201. The Cour t of Appea ls ha s j ur isdic tion under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Final
judgment was e nte re d i n the Dist ri ct Court on Septem be r 14, 2000 (A. 7). The
Noti ce of Appe al wa s f il ed in the Dis tr ict Cour t on Se pte mber 15, 2000 ( A. 7- 8) .
This appe al is fr om a fi nal j udgme nt di sposi ng of al l cla im s ( A. 250) .
Issues Presented.
1. Whether the Debate Regulations adopted by the Federal Election
Commission, which permit corporations to use their general treasury funds
SNIPPETS:
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
