Exhibit 898

Van Hollen v. FEC, Civil Action 11-0766 (ABJ), Memorandum Opinion

Exhibit 898 · Court opinion

Van Hollen v. FEC, Civil Action 11-0766 (ABJ), Memorandum Opinion

In sum, the Court finds that Congress spoke plainly, that Congress did not delegate authority to the FEC to narrow the disclosure requirement through agency rulemaking, and that a change in the reach of the statute brought about by a Supreme Court ruling did not render plain language, which is broad enough to cover the new circumstances, to be ambiguous.

Held 11 CFR 104.20(c)(9), limiting electioneering-communication donor disclosure to donors who gave for the purpose of furthering such communications, contrary to the unambiguous statute.

Source: U.S. District Court for D.C. (Judge Amy Berman Jackson)
Date: 30 March 2012
Quoted from: Conclusion, p. 31
Grade: Primary record
Document: https://www.fec.gov/resources/legal-resources/litigation/van_hollen_dc_memo_opinion.pdf
Accessed: 2026-11-10
Cited by: Findings citing this exhibit

Cited by

Finding POL-5.10: Primary record The D.C. Circuit held on 21 August 2020 that 11 CFR 109.10(e)(1)(vi), which limited disclosure of donors to independent expenditures to donations earmarked for a specific expenditure, conflicts with the statute. In Van Hollen v. FEC the district court held 11 CFR 104.20(c)(9), a purpose-based limit on electioneering-communication donor disclosure, contrary to the statute in 2012 and 2014, and the D.C. Circuit reversed on 18 September 2012 and 21 January 2016 and upheld the regulation.