The Combined Federal Campaign (CFC) is an annual charitable fund-raising drive conducted in the federal workplace during working hours largely through the voluntary efforts of federal employees.

Participating organizations confine their fund-raising activities to a thirty-word statement submitted by them for inclusion in the campaign literature.
Volunteer federal employees distribute to their co-workers literature describing the campaign and the participants, along with pledge cards. Designated funds are paid directly to the specified recipient.
The CFC is a relatively recent idea. Prior to 1957, charitable solicitation in the federal workplace occurred on an ad hoc basis. Federal managers received requests from dozens of organizations seeking endorsements and the right to solicit contributions from federal employees at their work sites. In facilities where solicitation was permitted, weekly campaigns were commonplace.
In 1957, President Eisenhower established the forerunner of the CFC to bring order to the solicitation process and to ensure truly voluntary giving by federal employees. The order established an advisory committee and set forth general procedures and standards for a uniform fund-raising program. It permitted no more than three charitable solicitations annually and established a system requiring prior approval by a committee on fundraising for participation by “voluntary health and welfare” agencies.
A number of organizations joined in challenging these criteria, including the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, the Federally Employed Women Legal Defense and Education Fund, the Indian Law Resource Center, the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights under Law, and the Natural Resources Defense Council. Each of the groups attempts to influence public policy through one or more of the following means: political activity, advocacy, lobbying, and litigation on behalf of others.
On what grounds did these organizations challenge the regulations? How do you think the Supreme Court ruled? See Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund [473 U.S.
788 (1985)].