the court my name is julie marie blake i'm deputy solicitor general for the state of missouri representing today the director of the missouri i think commission mr james clark is missouri's law is part of a disclosure regime under the supreme court's well established law is instead of prior restraint but if there is any way that this court can reasonably interpret the law to be part of a disclosure regime this record is required to do so under the canon of constitutional here that interpretation of the last time the supreme court applied that can in the first amendment a little speech case i can't recall one off the top of my head out that for decades i suspect has just that's not a doctor and that's that's very helpful and particularly prior restraint cases i disagree that you can make it you could make it helpful but i don't think you have case law that makes a deal there's no reason to distinguish the first amendment from other constitutional cases of great importance involving federalism involving rights or the doctrine has been a right wait wait wait you can't say that with a straight face to the supreme court is the first amendment is voids and go to the with the issues at hand the specifics at hand so that we also believe that the face of the statute itself shows that this is not a prior restraint and exactly scrutiny for that reason i ask you a simple question it says a committee must be formed how does that in any way relate to disclosure now there's a later section i know that tells about what you have to disclose and when you have to sign up this doesn't talk and talk about sign up it says the committee must be formed by a certain date that looks to me like it has nothing to do with this quote to answer that i would point you to some of the decisions of other circuits that talk about the components of a disclosure  three components of a disclosure regime reporting registration and organizational requirements and what we have here is an organizational requirement that's what the formation requirement is and they say that what you go to later sections as you go organized as a committee a special kind of entity this says the body itself must be formed you know burst born begun right and you know you look at well we believe that the formation of karma is part of what an organizational and reporting requirement would be because it's a necessary prerequisite to every other step of the disclosure regime if you do if you don't have any requirement to form you don't have to register and you don't have to report that's not true at all there's a five hundred dollar rule there's a five thousand dollar rule i don't have to have to tell you all those specific rules you know about i'm right and so what business had those rules those rules don't apply and don't work unless you've registered necessary no man and you well know that if you do five thousand dollars and certainly the election you've got to do it very quickly disclosed if you spend and take over five hundred bucks you've got to become a committee and even more your loss has individuals that that individuals if they do  says any individual that spends over five thousand bucks and has to report it immediately that's one thirty point zero forty four and that applies to individuals i i think we're talking past each other here you just say this is in trouble right and that's your real argument this formation requirement in trickle to the rest of the scheme right at heart yes but it's also an important prerequisite it's the first it what is the triggers the first disclosure stage trying to distinguish between the judge benton's enterable question and something that you find in the regulatory framework that's different and i'm i didn't follow that if that's where you were going i'm not sure i'm following along either at this point our main point is that the law itself doesn't work as a prior restraint because it doesn't say you can't speak if you don't form what it says is form on time a lawyer who is arguing against our first our first opinion which found that there was objectively there is objectively reasonable self centered censorship by m f a and others in reaction to this that you and i read your entire brief is urging us to  you know find another way to reverse but all you're doing is saying we were wrong the first time which i understand your you and your client i believe i think there are a few different responses to that i like to take in order so first you have to start with the standard what the score was looking understand going on the trees well it's very important that's not law the case because it didn't say what was the correct interpretation on the merit in fact that was the at the heart of the whole thing was in your footnote for you said you're not actually opining on the actual corr statute the important thing we believe is what you just jumped just jumped from one of the from the self censorship point to interpret in the sachin if if the if the private parties are objectively reasonable in reading and reading the statute in the way that you are urging us not to read it then there's been a chilling effect  scrutiny well ok so it seems to me the injury the effect here is that late forming committees based on their objectively reasonable self censorship are are  are not speaking that's a pretty severe impact that that sort of cries out for isn't there a better way to do it i knew it whether you're talking  exacting or strict scrutiny but generally i see the case but just because they have prudent reasons to self censor does not mean that the law in fact operates the way they did and we think that the law says shells are proving that that's what  we've gone beyond connor we've learned that it is operating that way on agreements extracted from non compliers and so forth fines and fees going form on time and then it has a variety of enforcement actions but neither of the laws say buy health insurance or you can't buy health insurance again this year nor does this last say form on time or you can't speak at all this year instead both of them lead to certain consequences and that is when the affordable care act tax someone could say look i'm choosing not to buy health insurance now i'll pay the tax maybe i'll pick it up half way through the year the same thing is true in this you had other committee you told me earlier and you're you're mostly right you've got to be committed to do anything under this law and it says the committee has to be formed and you've got to be a committee that's the rest of the regime as you well know different all different kinds of committees to do anything but you can form a committee late if you accept in this case the now the analogy to the tax you can still speak you can still form we think that that the statute does not say that because you have a generous director and a generous commission and a good old person's network well if you do that i wouldn't say it's mere generosity i think it's a fact that the commission takes the supreme court's decision and bill oddie seriously and that we understand the legislature to have taken seriously  you know says that you cannot cap or restrict speech relative to a ballot initiative which is of course what campaign committees are for him to do in this case and because they can't cap or limit that speech in any way they of but the point is that you know in in missouri officials guide their actions by concerned to avoid the first amendment problem that the other side is reading into the  regime and relatedly the government contends that a requirement to form within thirty days of the election when coupled with the requirement to register the committee by filing a statement organization within twenty days of having formed provides the commission with eight days before the election to process the committee's information and prepared to administer the committee's future disclosures missouri's mistake however is increased in creating an statutory scheme is to focus on setting a formation deadline that is to require a group to form sooner than its members would choose to form on their own or in first amendment parlance sooner than they would choose to associate politically let me ask you a question that determination has not taken place right you're here in court so him after he has not terminated right the well under missouri law we have your honor our treasurer michael gross did file a termination report and under internal revenue law five twenty seven we continue as an organization you continue as the federal entity but you say you have terminated as a campaign committee yes you ok so that part of the law is enforced and i assume that all parts of that are for enforced but you still exist as the five twenty seven go if you  missouri should have done to change its objective is sped up the registration deadline after the committee the citizens who formed it chose to have to form on their own with regard to footnote four in this court's prior opinion and i'll  refresh the court's recollection the court says the commission's stresses conner's reference to the continuing committee provision as a registration deadline m f a on the other hand believes the similar campaign committee provision is a formation deadline and these labels summarize the party's contrasting views and that is an issue on the merits we want to say that with regard to that issue there's no question that for campaign committees the thirty day deadline is a formation deadline not a registration deadline according to the plain language of section one thirty point eleven eight which defines the term campaign committee the quote sole purpose close quote of a campaign committee is to quote support or oppose one or more particular ballot measures in an election close quote a campaign committee by definition shall terminate thirty days after the end of an election close quote or pay down its debt and when paying debts shall not speak campaign committees do not continue as other entities do under missouri law each and every campaign committee must form a new not just register a new for each successive election cycle or indeed one to be careful because as a five twenty seven you reform wants aren't you proving too much now within missouri law your arm my understanding is we have to form every election cycle which means the decision to to engage in a missouri election and indeed if that were not the circumstance so you are saying that the subject there the such committee is only state law such committee yes that's what our understanding roughly yes indeed if the requirement were not to form a new the commission would not get the eight day window  by playing the statement of committee statement of organization off of the formation requirement the problem with the formation deadline is your brief you say well don't worry about connor's because caught the plaintiff and connor had been a in existence for many years that are you then suggesting that the import of the of the district court's decision is that it only applies to brand new you know committees is that there's your brief mean that that's the way we shouldn't her that's the way you are urging us to interpret the district court's opinion i think clearly not you her daughter i think therefore i there is a read this passage in your brief i said that's nonsense there's a there's a there is such a thing as a continuing committee under missouri law and i don't have the requirements of continuing committee committed to memory but a campaign committee is new and it renews every cycle so yes an ongoing organization applies to certainly to new campaign committees ones that are formed for a ballot committee purposes that also applies to any organization that has not yet become a continuing committee under missouri law and yet wants to  the nature of this provision of counsel only face that one time because they're continuing yes they do it once and then they're around for sixty years we don't have a campaign finance for forty years but same difference that's right yes and missouri missourians for fiscal accountability has not  requirements there's no question by the way that for campaign committees the thirty day deadlines of formation deadline and i want to point out will actually want to move to this point the government concedes in its own brief that a group of individuals who decides less than thirty days before an election to engage in first amendment activity relating to that election must at best pay quote a fee in order in gauging that speech and that fee of course is accompanied by an acknowledgement that the group has violated missouri law of the group if the group was aware of the requirements to form thirty days prior just as m f a was that group can be held criminally liable tagged with a misdemeanor whether this court characterized the provision as a prior restraint or as a blackout period and the district court held it was both what missouri could have done to accomplish its objective that is for just groups who choose to formulate it could have set a formation deadline not rather than set a formation deadline it could have sped up its registration deadline as south dakota has done indeed in south dakota political committees formed within thirty days prior to the election must submit their registration within forty eight hours of formation so the key speech must not predate the speech that is made just as formation deadlines cannot predate the group's decision to form a committee on its own in a polling federal post speech disclosure requirements not disclosures prior to buckley court noted that the disclosure requirements at issue were minimally restrictive and expressed in contrast of them with quotes the prior restraint in the requirements considered in cases like thomas the collins a supreme court case hundred five and you've heard of the government argue that the thirty day formation requirement is part of a larger disclosure regime it also says it's not a prior restraint it says the fee is optional of course the record contradicts all those things the government actually concedes that there is an enforcement action by the commission and it was established by the district court below that administrative process requires a one thousand dollars fine and a public reprimand for any group that files that forms late even if the information needed to further disclosure is already provided to the commission by the twenty ninth day through the statement of organization and contrary to the government's argument the fine is not a penalty that quote the offending committee may choose to accept on the contrary it is mandatory this leads me to the second characterization by the government that section one thirty point eight is part of a larger disclosure regime because it incentivizes committees to form early so the commission can have the committee's pertinent information eight days before the election what the government misses is so called disclosure provisions that trigger before a committee either speaks or forms is not rationally related to disclosure and yet you're talking off that short the government has said that the formation requirement incentivizes committees to form early so that the commission can add eight days to administer disclosure therefore it's a disclosure provision what the government misses is that the so called disclosure provisions that trigger before a committee either speaks or forms is not related to disclosure what's more the record establishes that even if a committee were to form twenty nine days prior to the election and registered the committee by filing a statement of organization on the same day the committee would still face a thousand dollar fine and for failing to form within thirty days prior as a district court suggested the thirty day provision does nothing and if only to further only that impact on contributions and expenditures that affect speech right that's right yes if ali said if you've got you've got to register within this this time period or you might face a fine period of this that you should stop there we the it's i guess i guess that i guess you're arguing about whether whether it's direct or indirect or nonexistent the impact on speech of the register you believe we believe it's both a prior restraint which would be some level indirect but why and they distort why me again i know what he said the first time around but tell me you know me again why it's a prior restraint because the inescapable effect if not the overt an intent of missouri's requirement to form thirty days prior to an election for the committee accepts contributions or makes expenditures is an interim provision that keeps groups of late deciding speak even though you're not giving me the why because there there's they're scared they read the statute says we needed to be formed thirty days ago or we're you mean you pay the fine when you speak or don't speak that's not true well if the only if the only punishment is for the registration seems to me that what the issue here is whether the remedial regime makes makes each expenditure contribution at the time when you're not properly registered subject to additional penalties if that's not the case then i don't understand the i don't understand your triggers if you make expenditures i don't understand the blackout yes with regard to the blackout the district court found i don't explain the blackout explain explain why the again the speed i thought i understood the first time around in this you know some a many years ago yeah because judge benton explained it to me now you now both of you are managing to confuse me completely it's blackout for these reason and it's best understood by a simple example under section one thirty point eleven eight every committee must terminate and go silent after the last election so imagine two groups of citizens are now considering whether they want to speak in future elections and therefore form a committee they both decide to form and they both formulate only the committee that makes expenditures or accepts contributions that is speaks or takes on the resources necessar will be punished by the plain language of one thirty point eleven eight the choice then i am not sure i understand that because the entire provision turns on a committee that makes expenditures or accepts contribution ok yeah ok with regard to constitutional avoidance i believe the court covered that earlier with regard to the idea that the registration deadline and whether it offends the first amendment excuse me the formation deadline and whether offensive first amendment was adjudicated in conor it was not connor decided merely that the question was not ripe indeed had the c be mentioned that in most cases there isn't actually a situation where there are fees imposed as a mandatory matter instead in many filings they're simply accepted late and the disclosures are accepted late without any problem second point i'd like to go to judge logan's question the regime medial regime does not make each expenditure or each contribution a new fee or other penalty from the commission instead the violation is a failure to register on time the failure to report on time however much speech they do however much or however little does not affect the nature of the  make no speech they have to terminate at the election after the election and then make no speech obviously then there's no report nothing to report right you can file a statement of nanuk to vittie in that case court the real blackout period here before the election will be a blackout period on voter information and transparency not a blackout period on speech the mission allows people to speak as much as they want so long as they file reports so that the public can understand where the money is coming from especially with early voting starting six weeks before the election and major ballot initiatives coming up this fall likely to include medical marijuana which may be taken off the week before right to work lobbyist black lobbyist periods all of that it's very important that the voters have the opportunity to get this information before the election that's the nature of the state interest justifying this law unless this court has further question