please the court my name isn't even the land of it should i represent montanans for community development or n c d in this case i'd like to reserve five minutes for a bottle and city challenges montana's campaign finance laws on four principal friends first and city does not know with certainty its political committee status or three porting obligations because at one hundred eleven pages the law is circular repetitive redundant and discretionary in its application second is a political committee under montana law it cannot be under buckley and this court's precedents third if the n c t circulates its intended as without registering as a political committee it will be subject to an investigatory process that does not adequately protect its privacy and association sees the association all rights and last in city knows it will be investigated because the commissioner political practices office has a history of intentionally and purposely discriminating against conservatives that consistent with the law if they understand it do not disclose their spending and spending sources first montana campaign finance statutes and regulations are bag the statute must be sufficiently clear of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited and in that regard it seems to me that your main your main contention although it seems to be stated in a whole lot of different ways and places is that the use of the word them and that would relate to what i had alluded to as the discretionary elements are discretionary opportunities for the commission or the use of the commissioner may consider one of eleven factors or seven factors  whatever you want but when it but in a context that it is used in these statutes when the commissioner macon may consider the following day considered to follow but it is but that does not mean that he may only consider the following i would i would disagree or honor i guess you haven't you never taste that supports that the use of the word may all by itself is no good while there is a montana case that we do it that laws that the word may in the statute must be construed according to the context and approve usage of the language and that in construing this statute every word clause and sentence must be given effect if it is possible to do so so the end that's different provisions it is not a mandatory term so while it gives that so when the commissioner may consider factors it has permission to consider those factors but those those factors are not necessarily exclusive i believe it is i believe it is used in a permissive manner but the commissioner may consider factors it is used some examples of how it is used when trying to determine whether something is reportable election activity and whether it is cordon aided the commissioner may consider eleven criteria and so the court the commissioner is trying to decide whether there is court nation for this reportable election activity west and go do something else well i might say well i might buy those items and buy additional items or i might i might choose to do some but not all of the list made is that there's nothing about that that i may purchase the list of items there's nothing that precludes me from going beyond the list and there's nothing that precludes me from from exhausting the list and so in that regard there's the commissioner has discretion as to you know when it is just deciding whether to and this example that i've given whether reportable election activity is cordon aided he may consider those eleven faction or backers he may consider something  initially we were observed that the political committee definition expenditure definition and contribution definition are all written in a circular fashion now the district court has attempted to remedy this by adopting an interpretation that the commission presented to it we do not believe that it is appropriate for the for the for that court to have adopted with the commissioners interpretation interpretations as this court has recognize province of state courts and so that the interpretation adopted is not a state court interpretation moreover the adoption is not an interpretation that is readily susceptible to a narrowing construction when you court case of  the court made clear that when interpret ing statutes the role of the court is to simply ascertain and declare what it is what is in terms or in substance contained therein not to insert what has been omitted or to admit what has been has constitutional infirmity it will be the state is argued that may means what i was suggesting when i gave the grocery west example and if we were to interpret it that way it would not in fact be vague so isn't that what we should do if there are two options rather than find a constitutional problem is limit the discretion you claim mr hooper are i had i do not believe that this court can limit it in that way because  it's long and i don't like it and we get that but in terms of the sort of way in which we're supposed to analyze things if we can adopt proper constitutional versus a potentially unconstitutional interpretation we have to pick the one that is not problematic well it would seem to me that in order to make a statute not veg to interpret may may would in fact have to beco acknowledge that if there is a way to interpret a statute to avoid an unconstitutional outcome a state court can do that this core is limited in what it can do in terms of interpretation to only what is it is construction that what if that's the reason then yes but if the court is trying to avoid an unconstitutional outcome that is really that is reserved to the state courts who interpret the law and not it is not for this  to consider i have to question about your claim of individual and on the part of the former collection head if you don't remember the exact title that person is no longer in office who was alleged to have have a personal bias against your clients and the views that they represent doesn't that make this moot because there's no similar personal animus on the part of the current person well there there has ensued he has not had an opportunity to to do any discovery or look into that issue with with the new commissioner however that would be a new claim  the person that you complained isn't there anymore right that is correct ok that is correct we do know you know and i and i and i understand your concern and one thing i will say we do know that there is an exception to the moon is doctrine word is capable of repetition yet evading review in montana there was a series of commissioners that serve for one year two years three years and that could that is the situation that could happen again maybe it won't wouldn't happen here we have now you could put confirmed commissioner who says for six years but that doesn't preclude a fact a situation like that occurring again where were a commissioner might be appointed in recess and take advantage of  opportunity to interpret the laws in a way that advance an agenda that they might have that seems pretty speculative and that it's very ironic and that it's fair that that is correct your honor  and and we have seen that the new commissioner you know he continues to pursue pursue litigation against these these organizations that are premised on this discriminatory conduct and he has been vocally supportive of th outcomes but we do recognize that this is a legitimate concern here but we do think that that underscores the importance of ensuring that the law and beg to to prevent as best as possible taking advantage of  laws to discriminate in the future montana's political committee definitions are also an overbroad regulation or statute is overbroad if it does not aim specifically evils within the allowable area of state control but on the contrary sweeps recognizing that on a big us campaign related spending was the focus and priority of campaign finance regulation and interpreted the federal political committee definition to only apply to organizations that have a major purpose of which is the nomination or election of a candidate recognize that the government has an interest in just closure to quote as to where political campaign money comes from and how it is spent by the candidate and quote to aid the voters in evaluating those who seek office this court has recognized in human life of washington that the major purpose test is not in force here are not a constitutional requirement rather but that a primary purpose or a priority what we equally constitutionally sufficient for purposes of establishing the the parameters of the application of a political committee definition similarly in a subsequent and i think that circuit decision of you mada the court said the purpose the purpose of nominating or electing a candidate could also was would was also constitutionally sufficient to justify establishing political committees within that ambit but a montana political committee status does not turn on any of the of these criteria and is not limited to unambiguous the campaign related spin spending in fact it is inherently broader because it reaches electioneering communications and it's important to note that electioneering communications here in montana are not the same as those and federal laws which are tied to express advocacy and the functionally equivalent and electioneering communication in montana is expressly not express advocacy and not the functional equivalent or the appeal for vote moreover m that it promotes and encourages policies that create jobs for a local economies throughout montana this is its priority this is its purpose the purpose primary purpose it matter what it actually is i mean oftentimes organizations extremely broadly you stated a very general statements of their mission but then it depends on what they actually do well this arc to determine that priority but we can also look at the ads that they want that they've offered right that's what if you if you've done nothing and don't intend to do anything then you wouldn't like standing which is the other issue but you specifically said this is what we want to far what they are trying to do and i have and i do think that that is a valuable or an important thing to look at in this context as well particularly since there is no history that can be looked to to determine you know what they have done in the past so looking at the ads here it is clear that these ads are designed for this purpose promote and encourage policies that create jobs and grow local economies throughout montana the ads are promoting development  n the oil and gas industry there where they were for recipients to look into a five part plan that energy twenty one has advanced and so it is it is clear that they are not even incidentally engaging in it please the court my name is not coke and our i'm assistant attorney general for the state of montana here today representing the state defendants and i believe in this matter with all of the various messages competing for voters attention in an election the ability to know who is behind those messages who's financially behind those messages is of critical importance the laws that are at issue here today provide the montana voters with that information and this court has upheld laws very similar to these in cases like alaska right to life committee and human life washington v brahms cycle the district court properly upheld them here by correctly applying the principles of standing magnus and the exacting scrutiny standard to determine that montana's laws were substantially related to our important interests of our voters knowing who is behind the law behind the spending and who's trying to influence them i want to turn to standing first since i didn't get discussed earlier the district court determined that him city lacks standing to challenge the statute authorizing the commissioner to investigate alleged campaign finance violations but they lack standing to challenge got investigated that would be way down the road so why isn't there standing with respect to the regulations that immediately went into effect and your honor i'm not aware of that precedent opposing counsel has not cited that the precedent that i'm aware of as is from the amount of case which says that you look at that the law in effect at the time that the complaint was filed and when the complaint was filed here the regs that were that they attempted to challenge were were honor what the commissioner had been one of the quote that they point to is the commissioner saying that they were the policy of the office but he also clarified that they were not enforceable and they were not the law and regardless by statute regulations that are not don't have the force of law cannot be enforced against anybody rather than then and then i coming up with whatever the president is that i know judge graver will  find the the idea that they might have amended their complaint to somehow obscure the springs hollow when they they did not file a motion to amend after the brief our brief was filed on standing they didn't file anything in the two months before the hearing where it was argued and they didn't file anything within the five months before the next this the decision came out so i don't think you can bypass standing in favor of judicial economy i think it's not aspirational it's not it's not it's not my past and yes it when only needs to look at him c d s complaint to recognise that this was not an appropriate pre enforcement case given that the language that they challenge was not even the language that was adopted into the regulations so while there may have been some laws that were going to  inevitably coming into effect the laws that mc challenged were not those laws they weren't chilled by the laws that came into effect they were chilled apparently by laws that never came into effect that were draft language rules so i think that the standing claim still i think they still have a problem there i think there are allegations that would show a ring hollow on the regulations that were not in a fact as for the statute authorizing campaign finance by best  simply not appropriate for it doesn't lend itself to a pre enforcement challenge it's not it's not a prescripti on the viewpoint discrimination and equal protection challenges as i understood the argument i believe that they agree that the case is is likely moot so i don't want to spend a lot of time on that if if there is some question about what future commissioners do is it a judgment pointed out there's a case in the future that there are more than welcome to bring i think that the fact that the current commissioner is requiring reporting for electioneering types of communications stems more from the fact that that's codified in our laws it's not any sort of a discriminatory  enforcement of laws that's just the nature of the laws that are in effect in any event that is a moot claim turning to the constitutional challenges to our statutes montana's law should be upheld because they survive exacting scrutiny and because they're not vague on the exacting scrutiny standard it's been settled that that states have an important informational interest in providing voters with the information it's behind who's spending it's well settled in alaska right to life this court held that that was a compelling interest and of course the reason is is that we're republic that the voters are sovereign the people are sovereign and the ability for them to make the choices and the  decisions for our country are based on the table to make decisions being able to follow the money behind ads gives them that information our laws are also substantially related to the electronic reporting requirement allows transparency it fosters transparency it allows for quick reporting of information something that you mount up pointed out was a vital window into the marketplace of ideas as well as following campaign finance it includes ads that are in the days and months shortly before an election that mention a candidate citizens united recognize that the public has an interest in knowing who is speaking about candidates shortly before an election this serves that interest citizens united in this court of also that the idea that only regulations can only reach express advocacy is not the case what is your response to counsel argument that if the primary purpose of the organization isn't to elect particular candidates sure of the viewpoint of the organization law should not apply to them cannot properly apply to them human life washington and you mata the standard that is applied is exacting scrutiny and so the question becomes not is this the major purpose or the primary purpose but does the state does montana have an interest a substantial is it have an interest in requiring groups who are spending like this to disclose their information so that the owners and they do in looking at that you can look to the types of birds that are on the committees that are placed on the committees in montana does not have a one size fits all under our political committee definition under that rubric there are several different types of committees there's incidental committees there's independent committees which are what you would typically think of  contributions their loans cash balances at the beginning of the month cash balances at the end incidental group to become a group to support or oppose a candidate or to send a mailer that mentions a candidate in the closing days if they want to just do one they can accomplish that in a single filing and they check on a national report and a closing report they provide some basic information again of this type that in canyon ferry this court already noticed we're not unduly burdensome and they can be in and out and one filing in fact and in our supplemental excerpts of record at two thirty one and two forty are the forms that the commissioner has prepared court and the supreme court have never required perfectly already and language we're obviously reduced to language that's what we have to work with and you can always come up with a hypothetical that can that can put a may be considered but what may be considered is limited to the following and that's the plain language reading that's not that's not unfettered discretion or unlimited discretion the statute itself or the regulation itself limits that discretion  so you would remain as you were allowed to consider the following eleven things i think that the plane reading that the following may be considered limits what may be considered to the following that's correct the second  thing that i think is important to keep in mind is this court looks through those those challenges is what these are facial injuries and as facial challenges in cd has standing only to vindicate its own rights it doesn't have standing to complain about the  as it might apply to others who are not before this court in closing i guess i would just say that there's no question that m c g has the right to talk to voters the right to speak to voters there's also no question that the voters have a right to know that it's him cd speaking to them the first amendment protects speech and at a hearing indicate that the regulations had been had become the policy of the commission the office of commissioner of political practices which is important in the because in the past in this same case the  the commission relied on in the district court relied on the commission's reliance on a confidentiality policy which was the policy of the commission and has never been adopted into law and yet because it was the policy of the commissioner it would be considered to be enforced but moreover looking at what the commissioner submitted to the pre publication she the secretary of state on of amber twenty four this  political committees who are already disclosing that information and so it is redundant and under heller would fail the narrow tailoring requirement of the for the for the provision and it is important also to recognize that with political committee status we're not simply talking about disclosure disclosure pick could be a one time event driven reporting situation but instead but political committee status comes with it i dish in obligations and burdens finding a treasurer which has become difficult in montana people are afraid to become them because because you can be sued but the treasurer also available get it to follow the money and keep track of it and it does create an obligation that it's not there for other organizations so a purpose a primary purpose or in our opinion a major purpose is appropriate in that cont