and as applied challenge to provisions of alaska campaign finance law that imposes expensive restrictions including private registration pack type reporting disclaimers and contribution limits on any entity that mentions the name of any state candidate in any communication anywhere in alaska or the world within thirty days of an election these restrictions go way beyond the  had no problem with it in the sense of he actually got to do it when you have the standing to challenge in that and given that well let's go right live to set up clay classically like literally thousands if not tens of thousands of not for profit organizations that is their central membership organization and corporation is a five a one c four that's the plaintiff here and then they have separate segregated the five a one c three which is a pac for such activities but must say use their pac in order to engage in issue advocacy activities that are protected by the first amendment and of course in the end you look at the cases such as austin vs michigan subject to contribution limits just like the money that would have to be used in alaska is subject to contribution limits it is subject to reporting is subject to a myriad of organizational requirements in the last that even goes further you have to be prior registered before you can engage in any communication you have to tell your contributors that the money might be used for and electioneering communication all of which in prior imposed prior restraints on the use of the money the money is then subject to the organization is subject to reporting of those all their contributors and all other expenditures in perpetuity even though they only do one candidate in a broadcast ad that with other requirements subject to restrictions in alaska then yes if you if you mentioned if you had a quote directly or indirectly restriction on speech must be both not overbroad that is only encompasses the amount of the speech that is can be legitimately subject to regulate through regulation that is narrowly tailored pursuing a compelling interest and secondly not so i am describing the over breath nature of the communications that are limited and restricted under alaska law with the election of that as i understand your last in alaska which does not is not contained in the statute so this would not resolve the constitutional issue that you're facing because there's multiple over breath aspects of this importance and while there is no comparable content requirement in the federal election and communication provision this doesn't introduce degnan into the into the statute certainly strict scrutiny applies here  strict scrutiny and balances with the burden on the government and that is one that it was not pay and secondly that it was not over brought and that analysis of the supreme court looked at whether the functional equivalent of express advocacy and therefore not overbroad now here one we have no proof that every communication you know alaska within thirty days of a of an election functional equivalent of express advocacy in other words the state and simply not made its burden that this regulation of every communication in the state which vengeance directly or indirectly a issues of national state or local importance is not determinable and the the fact that you have to determine that this is not an issue communication by the terminating why whether or not it supports or opposes a candidate introduce health the phrase clearly identified from and making this challenge because it was ascertainable you know because it had the explicit and i think biggest reference to a candidate that is the name or the likeness of the whether or not the reference is to a particular candidate and it is exactly that that is the she just doing of the knowledge about who this communication addresses from the speaker to the employee pack registration and reporting in other words they have to report until they disband they do want telemarketing script as indicated on the record one the latter they spend more than five hundred dollars on activities unless their major purpose is the lecturer nomination of candidates they can be required as mcconnell upheld a single report but it is the nature of the organization that is pertinent to whether or at the end of our brief there's a chart that describes the feel ask of require months and then this text of our brief we have explained how those differ from the pack style reporting requirements or addressed by the point thirteen point zero seven zero zero b appears to impose contribution limits on non group entities and it does not appear that way to me again i'm just looking at it for the first time here this morning refers to contribution limits imposed on an individual and the preceding statute fifteen thirteen zero six seven distinguishes between individual and non group and of the i would  alaska rights life lost when the supreme court if you could stick to it and mcconnell secondly i'd like to discuss the deficiencies in the right to fly so called functionally equivalent test for constitutionality which it presents on appeal third i'd like to discuss the last minute disclosures of the last the right to life because of corporations disclosure which i think goes to the question of whether they have standing and there's also a relevant disclosure in other respect sixth of two thousand and two without any affidavits without any discussion of whether and to what extent their speech actually was heard and you know that any discussion as to whether and to what extent a pox on the public had an interest in the challenge profession state's interest you're the only one that has any evidence in the record that's correct ok on page sixteen of present life summary judgment memo has stated plaintiff presents this court with a facial challenge to alaska's campaign disclosure law the financial review of the statutes constitutionality requires little fact analysis by the court right to life especially best to farm on an interpretation th in fact right to life used that term in the major heading in the argument section of a summary judgment memorandum where it used the heading buckley's bright line the constitutionally mandated expressed see case that went on to argue that there was a those defendants both plaintiff and defendant from court the court asking it to determine whether alaska's campaign finance reform provisions must include the distinction between issue advocacy and express advocacy and whether burdens on issue advocacy speech are permissible to any political answer they argued is that the issue advocacy is that issue advocacy may not be infringed upon since alaska does not distinguish between issue advocacy and express regulation so show this cursed pay unconstitutional to require disclosure of expenditures for campaign communications unless those communications are expressed x t or the functional equivalent justified by the same justification to support the ban on communication was part of a telemarketing script which does the last correct life is always on the forefront of implementing pro life legislation within our state that is then a partial birth abortion tester we believe things are important so that is just the better if you get to the functional equivalency test that is the functional equivalent of express advocacy it indicates a an exploitation and to vote for association when the only recognized compelling interest is the interest in regulating corporations again they empathize so in their own opening group they're setting up this distinction between corporations which as we read it include so called right to life type corporations and associations to get it paid to thirty five to thirty specs to their opening brief they expand on this present you now also see that the state's interest is compelling where a corporation including m c i felt type corporation is involved as distinguished from an association pages twenty four to twenty five of their brief they emphasize that because the communication would not be done by a corporation again they emphasize corporations it is not the functional equivalent of express advocacy and then of pages thirty eight thirty nine of their opening brief right to life concedes that notice to donors may be said they like their for profit counterparts benefit from significant state created advantages and may well be able to amass substantial political war excess the court said not all corporations have qualified for favorable tax treatment under olinsky four of the internal revenue code lacks substantial resources and this category includes some of the nation's most politically powerful organizations of course nonprofit advocacy corporations are moreover no less the top of all than traditional business companies to misuse as a conduit for circumventing the contribution limits imposed on individuals so again this distinction is not the facts so much as the the facts that they have not been able to figure this out until the last minute such that their own counsel apparently don't know whether there is just three or two different organizations  their response to the same question or when i asked  unconstitutional ok now what happens to this law with regard to their p try to have a fund of money from wherever source a quote non group does do something that a pack couldn't do but it sounds like you're trying to apply the same horrible business group from a to separately and i think subject somewhat different requirements but in any event because of this corporation thing is is messed up my my route to thinking but if if the way to prevail prevails that group will do something and not have the requirements of the pact group could maybe do but would have required i think that's correct ok whatever fully done that analysis and demonstrated that the state does have a compelling interest and that the statutes are narrowly tailor expenditure so they forcing these electioneering communications into a pac or you can't do them at all now the now i'm group and to tea and the pac are regulated in the same way also other requirements such as you must notify your contributors if your and nine groups answer to you that you may use these secondly that the motion for summary judgment is supported by an affidavit to verify complaint verify