activities so that determining its major purpose requires a very close examination of various activities and statements. Or an organization may be engaging in substantial amounts of both federal and non-federal electoral activity, again requiring a detailed analysis of its various activities. 511 F.Supp.2d at 31. The necessity of a contextual inquiry is supported by judicial decisions applying the major purpose test, which have used the same fact-intensive analysis that the Commission has adopted. See, e.g., Fed. Election Comm’n v. Malenick, 310 F.Supp.2d 230, 234-37 (D.D.C.2004), rev’d in part, No. Civ. A. 02-1237(JR), 2005 WL 588222 (D.D.C. Mar. 7, 2005); Fed. Election Comm’n v. GOPAC, Inc., 917 F.Supp. 851, 859, 864-66 (D.D.C.1996); see also Shays II, 511 F.Supp.2d at 29-31 (<HOLDING>). Real Truth’s argument that the major purpose
holding that fathers military service alone was neither political opinion nor sufficient to establish imputed political opinion holding that the commissions choice to regulate  527 groups by determining whether they qualified as political action committees on a casebycase basis was neither arbitrary nor capricious holding that the mere allegation of arbitrary and capricious action on defendants part absent a direct and pointed attack on the evidentiary basis of the agencys action is insufficient to warrant a judicial determination of wrongful agency action holding that evaluations submitted after the committees final decision cannot be considered in determining whether the decision was arbitrary and capricious holding that the classification made by  252242 was neither unreasonable nor arbitrary