
USCA1 Opinion

	




                            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-
