Abstract
At issue in Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington et al. v. FEC, No. 19-5161 (D.C. Cir.), is whether government may trigger Track 1, political-committee(-like) burdens for a particular organization. Attached is a copyrighted amicus brief that the author filed with the parties' consent, as indicated on page 1, footnote 5. The Supreme Court has applied constitutional scrutiny and established the two-track system under which government may regulate—i.e., require disclosure of—political speech. E.g., Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 63-64, 79-82 (1976) (per curiam); Randy Elf, The Constitutionality of State Law Triggering Burdens on Political Speech and the Current Circuit Splits, 29 Regent U.L. Rev. 35, 35-37 & nn.1-12 (2016) (“Triggering”). This action does not address Track 2, non-political-committee disclosure requirements. Instead, this action addresses law triggering Track 1, political-committee(-like) burdens. Government may trigger such burdens only for “organizations” that are “under the control of” candidates in their capacities as candidates, or for “organizations” having “the major purpose” under Buckley, 424 U.S. at 79; Triggering at 48 & n.84, and engaging in more than small-scale speech, Sampson v. Buescher, 625 F.3d 1247, 1249, 1251, 1261 (10th Cir. 2010); Triggering at 62-64 & nn.153-54. One method of determining the Buckley major purpose asks whether an organization devotes the majority of its spending to contributions to, or independent expenditures for, candidates or ballot measures, Triggering at 60-61 & nn.147-50, with “independent expenditure” meaning Buckley express advocacy that is not coordinated with a candidate, id. at 36 n.9, 61 n.150, 67 & nn.168-71. No constitutional method of determining the Buckley major purpose includes contributions other than contributions to candidates or ballot measures, or independent spending other than independent expenditures properly understood. Id. at 60-61 & nn.147-50. This excludes contributions to others. This also excludes the appeal-to-vote test. Id. at 60 n.148, 70 & n.184. Indeed, “the appeal-to-vote test—once known as the ‘functional equivalent of express advocacy’—no longer affects whether government may ban, otherwise limit, or regulate speech, and the appeal-to-vote test is vague. It has no place in law.” Id. at 77. The last page of the attached copyrighted brief is a newspaper column by the author. It summarizes Triggering and is cited in Triggering at 85 n.278.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.