Van Hollen, Jr. v. FEC

After the Supreme Court held corporations and unions could be barred from funding electioneering communications only if those communications were the functional equivalent of express advocacy, the FEC (defendant) adopted a rule requiring corporations and unions to disclose donations over $1,000 made for the purpose of furthering electioneering communications; Representative Van Hollen (plaintiff) argued the underlying statute contained no purpose requirement and that the FEC's rule therefore violated it, invoking the interpretive canon that Congress's omission of a purpose requirement in this section (while including one elsewhere in the statute) meant the FEC couldn't add one. The trial court agreed with Van Hollen, and the D.C. Circuit reviewed the FEC's rule de novo.