The Supreme Court has construed
§ 437h so that, if a district court concludes that a challenge to the FECA is frivolous, the court may dismiss the case without certifying it.
See California Med. Ass'n v. Federal Election Comm'n, 453 U.S. 182, 193–94 n. 14, 101 S.Ct. 2712, 69 L.Ed.2d 567 (1981). The District Court concluded that the challenge to
§ 441b(a) was not frivolous, made comprehensive findings, and certified Mariani's challenge to this Court.
Section 437h, as construed by the Supreme Court, required the District Court to make fact findings. Many of the District Court's findings were stipulated to by the parties and are uncontested. The government and the Federal Election Commission (“FEC”), however, assail other findings and the Court's 21 ultimate findings of fact as being excessive or beyond its powers. They also argue that a number of them, including the ultimate findings, are unsupported by the record. Our review of the District Court's findings, made in a setting outside the traditional adversary crucible, is not deferential. As we note in Part II, we agree that some of the District Court's findings are unsupported by proper evidence and that some stray from appropriate fact finding into legal conclusions. But even assuming that the role of soft money is that asserted by Mariani and found by the District Court, we conclude that the record could not support a holding that
§ 441b(a) violates the First Amendment.