Stephen E. Stockman v. United States

Former Congressman Stockman was sentenced to a decade in prison for First Amendment activity in campaign finance and charitable fundraising. Until the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, this Court’s the narrowing construction of the term “expenditures” from Buckley v. Valeo applied to the Federal Election Campaign Act. BCRA adopted a new rule for “electioneering communications” (i.e., broadcast ads), which McConnell v. FEC upheld from facial challenge. In doing so, McConnell used opaque language about Buckley’s ongoing application to nonBCRA parts of FECA, which were not even at issue in McConnell. The Fifth Circuit cited that opaque language to reject Buckley for non-BCRA activity, working a repeal by implication of non-BCRA parts of FECA. Campaign-finance issues infect other charges (i.e., fraud, tax evasion, money laundering) the government piled on for nonprofit fundraising for ideological purposes: If the print media were issue advocacy – and not express advocacy for federal candidates – under Buckley, the fraud case and elements of other related counts evaporate. Even without the campaignfinance issue, it would chill crucial First Amendment rights under the exacting standards of Illinois ex rel. Madigan v. Am. Telemarketing Assocs. to make it a crime – after the fact – for fundraisers to raise insufficient funds to complete projects for which they raised seed money. The questions presented are:

1. Whether Buckley’s narrowing construction applies to non-BCRA activity (i.e., non-electioneering communications) in FECA enforcement actions.

2. Whether the government’s fraud claims meet the exacting First Amendment standards in Madigan.