Pur s uantt o Feder al R ul e of A ppel l at e Pr ocedur e 43( c) ( 2) , C ol or ado * Secr et aryof St at e M i ke C offman i s aut om at i cal l ys ubs t i tut ed forform erC ol or ado S e c re tar yo f

S tate G ig i D e n n is a s th e D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t/C ro ss -A p p e llee in th is cas e. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### A u gu s t21,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt PU BL I SH UNI TED S TATES COURT OF APP EALS

TENTH C IR C U IT
CO LO RA D O RI G H T TO LI FE C O M M IT T E E , IN C ., P l ai nti ff-A pp el l ee/ C ross A p p e llan t,
v. M I K E C O FFM A N , i n hi s offi ci al * capa ci t yas C ol or ado Secr et aryof St at e, D efen dan t -A pp el l ant/ C ross A ppel l ee.

_______________________________ C O L O R A D O C O M M O N C A U SE and L E AGUE OF WOM E N VOT E RS OF CO L OR ADO. A m i ci C ur i ae i n s uppor tof D efen dan t - A pp el l ant/ C ross A ppel l ee. N os . 05- 1519 and 05- 15382 A ppeal from t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t ri ct C ourt

for t he D i s t r i c t of

C ol or ado ( D. C. No . 0 3 - c v - 1 4 5 4 - W DM - P AC)

M aur i ce G . K nai zer( w i t h M oni ca M ár quez a nd J ohn W . Sut her s , A t t or ney G e n e ra l fo r th e S tate o f C o lo ra d o , o n th e b rie fs), D e n v e r, C o lo ra d o fo r D e fe n d a n tA ppel l ant/ C r os s - A ppel l ee. J ames Bopp, J r . ( w i t h R i char d E . C ol es on on the br i efs ) , B opp, C ol es on & B o stro m , T e rre H a u te, In d ian a fo r P lain tiff-A p p e llee /C ro ss -A p p e llan t. M ar t ha M . T i erney , K el l y/ H agl und/ G arns ey +K ahn LL C , D enver , C ol or ado, fi l ed a br i ef on be hal f of A m i ci C ur i ae. B efor e HENR Y , AN DE RS ON , and HO LM ES , C i rcui tJudg es. HENR Y , C i r cui tJ udge.
A r t i cl e X X V I I I of the C ol or ado C ons t i tut i on i s a ci t i zen- pas s ed ca m pai gn fi nance r eform amendm entdes i gned t o l i m i tthe i nfl uence of ce r t ai n types of
corpor at i ons ’ gener al funds on s t at e el ect i ons . C ol or ado R i ghtt o L i fe Com m i t t ee ( C R L C ) , a non- pr ofi ti deol ogi cal corpor at i on, s oughtdecl ar at oryand i nj unct i ve reli ef ag ains t th e C o lorad o S ec retaryo f S tat e, arg u ing that A rt icl e X X V III cont ai ned pr ovi s i ons t hati nt er fer ed w i th i t s tr adi t i onal comm uni cat i ons and act i vi t i es and, t her eby , vi ol at ed i t s Fi r s tand Four t eenth A m endmentr i ght s under th e U n ited S tate s C o n stitu tio n . T h e d istric t co u rt g ra n ted su m m a ryju d g m e n t in p a r tt o CRLC an d i n p a r tt o t h e Se c r e t a ry . Th e Se c r e t a ryn o w ap p e a l s , a n d CRLC1T he peopl e of the s t at e of Col or ado her eby fi nd and decl ar e . . . that i n r ece nt

y ear s t he adve ntof s i gni fi cants pendi ng on el ect i oneer i ng comm uni cat i ons , as defined h erei n, has frustrat ed the pu rpose of ex i st i ng cam paign finance requir em ents ; t hati ndepende ntr es ear ch h as d emonstr at ed thatthe vas tm aj or i tyof t el evi s ed el ect i oneer i ng comm uni cat i ons goes bey ond i s s ue di s cus s i on t o expr es s el ec toral advoca cy ; t hatpol i t i cal contr i but i ons fr om corpor at e tr eas ur i es ar e notan i ndi cat i on of popul ars uppor tfort he corpor at i on’ s pol i t i cal i deas and ca n unfai r l yi nfl uence t he (continued...) 3 c ro s s -a p p e a ls . W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 9 1 a n d a ffi r m . S p e c i fi c a l l y, w e h o ld th a t th e c h a llen g e d se c tio n s o f A rticle X X V III re g u latin g c o rp o ra te e x p e n d itu re s a n d e lec tio n e e rin g c o m m u n ica tio n s a re u n c o n stitu tio n a l as a p p lied to C R L C beca us e C R L C m eet s Supr eme C our t - appr oved exe m pt i on r equi r ement s for
a v o lu n ta ry id e o lo g ic a l c o rp o ra tio n th a t s e e k s to e n g a g e in p o litic a l s p e e c h . See FE Cv . Ma ss . C itize n s fo r L ife , 479 U . S. 238, 259- 60 ( 1986) ( pl ur al i tyopi ni on) (“ M CFL ”) . I n addi t i on, w e conc l ude thatA r t i cl e X X V I I I ’ s defi ni t i on of a p o lit ica l co m m itt e e is u n c o n stitu tio n a l as a p p lied to C R L C b e c a u se it fa ils to i ncorpor at e B uckley v . Val eo ’s “ m ajo r p u rp o s e ” te s t. 4 2 4 U .S . 1 , 7 9 (1 9 7 6 ). Fi nal l y , w e dec l i ne C R L C ’ s i nvi t at i on t o r econs i deri t s r emai ni ng fac i al ch all en g es to v ariou s sec ti o n s o f A rt icl e X X V III . I . BA CK GR OUND A . A rt i cl e XX V I I I of t he C ol orado C onst i t ut i on I n N ovember2002, C ol or ado vot er s , s eeki ng t o l i m i tthe i nfl uence of m oney o n sta te e lec tio n s, p a ss e d A m e n d m e n t 2 7 . A m e n d m e n t 2 7 a m e n d e d A rticle 1(...continued) 1 out come of C ol or ado’ s el ect i ons ; and thatthe i nt er es t s of the publ i c ar e bes ts erved byl i m i t i ng campai gn contr i bu ti o n s, encour agi ng vol unt arycampai gn s pendi ng l i m i ts, p rov i di ng ful l and t i m el ydi s cl os ur e of c ampai gn contr i but i ons , i ndepende nt expendi tur es , and fun di ng el ect i oneer i ng comm uni cat i ons and s tr ong enfor cement of ca m paign finance requir em ents . C ol o. C ons t . art . X X V I I I , § 1. “Expre s s l yadvoca t i ng” i s notdefi ned i n A r t i cl e X X V I I I . T he B uckley 2 C our tdefi ned expr es s advoca cyas “expr es s t erm s advoca t [i ng] t he el ect i on or d e fe a t o f

a c lea rlyid e n tifie d c a n d id a te fo r fe d e ra l o ffice . . . [a n d a d v e rtise m e n ts th a t u s e te rm in o lo g y ] s u c h a s ‘v o te fo r’ ‘e le c t,’ ‘s u p p o rt ,’ ‘ c a s t yo u r b a llo t fo r,’ ‘ [C andi dat e’ s name] forC ongr es s , ’ ‘ vot e aga i ns t , ’ ‘ defe at , ’ [and] ‘ r ej ect . ’ ” 424 U .S . a t 4 4 & n .5 2 . “B uckley a d o p ted th e ‘e x p re ss a d v o c a c y ’ re q u ire m e n t to d istin g u ish d isc u ss io n o f iss u e s a n d c a n d id a tes f ro m m o re p o in ted e x h o rta tio n s to vot e forpar t i cul arper s ons . ” M CFL , 479 U . S. at249. 4 X X V III o f

th e C o lo ra d o C o n stitu tio n to p ro h ib it co rp o ra tio n s f ro m u sin g th e ir gener al funds t o m ake c ont r i but i ons , expendi tur es , and el ect i oneer i ng com m un i cat i on s. S ect i on 3(4)( a) of A rt i cl e X X V II I r eads: I ts hal l be unl aw ful fora corpor at i on orl aboror gani zat i on t o m ake contr i but i ons t o a ca ndi dat e comm i t t ee ora pol i t i cal party , and t o m ake expendi tur es expr es s l yadvoca t i ng the el ect i on or defe at of a c andi dat e; exce ptt hat a corpor at i on or l abor or gani zat i on m ayes t abl i s h a pol i t i cal comm i t t ee or s m al l donorcomm i t t ee w hi ch mayacc eptcontr i but i ons or du es fr om em ploy ees, offi ceho l ders, shareholder s, or m em bers. 2 S ect i on 6(2) further r eads: N o tw ith stan d ing an ysec ti o n to the co n tr ary , it sh all b e u n law fu l fo r a co rp o r a t i o n o r l a b o r o r g a n i z a t i o n t o p r o v i d e f u n d i n g for an el ect i oneer i ng comm uni cat i on; exce ptthatany p o li t i cal comm i t t ee or s m al l donorcomm i t t ee e s t abl i s hed bys uch corpor at i on orl aborA n elect i on eeri ng com m un i cat i on i s defi ned as 3 anycomm uni cat i on br oadca s t ed byt el evi s i on orr adi o, pr i nt ed i n a n e w sp a p e r o r o n a b ill b o a rd , d ire c tlym a iled o r d e liv e re d b yh a n d to p e rso n a l re sid e n c e s o r o th e rw ise d istrib u ted th a t: ( I ) U nambi guous l yr efe r s t o anycandi dat e; and ( I I ) I s br oadca s t ed, pr i nt ed, m ai l ed, del i ver ed, ordi s tr i but ed w i thi n t hi r t yday s befor e a pr i m aryel ect i on ors i xtyday s befor e a gener al el ect i on; and ( I I I ) I s br oadca s t ed t o, pr i nt ed i n a new s paperdi s tr i but ed t o, m ai l ed t o, del i ver ed byhand t o, orotherw i s e di s tr i but ed t o an audi ence t hati ncl udes m ember s of the el ect or at e fors uch publ i c off

i ce. C o lo. C o n st. art. X X V III , § 2 (7)(a). 5 or gani zat i on m ayp rov ide f u n d ing fo r an elec ti o n ee ri n g co m m u n i cat i on. 3 H ow ever , fol l ow i ng t he U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our t ’ s t eac hi ngs i n M CFL , A r t i cl e X X V I I I and Secr et aryof St at e R ul e 4. 13 cr eat ed an e xcept i on t o the pr ohi bi t i on forcorpor at i ons t hatm eetthr ee r equi r ement s . Sect i on 3( 4) ( b) provides: T h e p ro h ib iti o n c o n tain e d in p a ra g ra p h (a ) o f th is s u b se c tio n (4 ) sh a ll n o t ap p lyto a c o rp o ra tio n th a t: (I) Is fo rm e d fo r th e p u rp o se o f p ro m o tin g p o lit ica l i deas and ca nnotengage i n bus i nes s act i vi t i es ; and ( I I ) Ha s n o s h a r e h o l d e r s o ro th e rp e r s o n s wi th a c l a i m on i t s as s et s ori ncome; and (III) W a s n o t es tab lish e d b ya n d d o e s n o t ac c e p t co n tr ibu ti o n s fro m b u sine ss co rpo rati o n s o r l ab o r organizat i on s.6

C o lo . C o n st. a rt. X X V III, § 3 (4 )(b ). S im ilarly , R u le 4 .1 3 , the S e c re tar yo f S tate R ules ’ excepti on t o § 6(2) r eads: A r t i cl e X X V I I I § 6( 2) , conce rni n g the prohi bi t i on agai ns tfundi ng by corporat i on s and labor or ga ni z a t i on s fo re l e c t i on e e r i ng c omm un i cat i on s, sh a ll n o t ap p lyto a n yc o rp o ra tio n th a t: a. W as form ed fort he purpos e of pr om ot i ng pol i t i cal i deas and ca nnot e n g a g e in b u sin e ss a c tiv iti e s; b. H as no s har ehol der s w i th a cl ai m on i t s asse ts orotheri ncome; and
c . W a s n o te s t a b l i s h e d b y , a n d d o e s n o t a c c e p tc o n tr i b u t i o n s f r o m b u s in e s s c o rp o ra tio n s o r l a b o r o rg a n iz a tio n s . C o lo . S e c . o f

S ta te , R u le s C o n c e rn in g C a m p a ig n a n d P o litic a l F in a n c e , R u le 4 .1 3 . W e have l abel ed the exc ept i on es t abl i s hed by§ 3( 4) ( b) and R ul e 4. 13 the “ M CFL exempt i on. ” A c o rp o ra tio n th a t m e e ts th e se c riter ia m a yu se its g e n e ra l co rp o ra te t r eas ur i es t o m ake e xpendi tur es , contr i but i ons , and el ect i oneer i ng c o m m u n ica tio n s. H o w e v e r, th e S e c re tar ym a in tain s th a t w h e th e r o r n o t a corpor at i on m eet s t he M CFL exempt i on, i tm us ts t i l l r egi s t eras a pol i t i cal
c o m m itt e e if

it m a k e s o r a c c e p ts c o n trib u tio n s o r e x p e n d itu re s in e x c e ss o f $ 2 0 0 to su p p o rt o r o p p o se th e n o m in a tio n o r e lec tio n o f c a n d id a tes . C o lo . C o n st. a rt. X X V I I I , § 2( 12) ( a) ( defi ni ng “pol i t i cal comm i t t ee” as “anyper s on, otherthan a natur al per s on, oranygr oup of tw o orm or e per s ons , i ncl udi ng natur al per s ons t hat h av e a cc ep ted o r m ad e c o n tr ibu ti o n s o r ex p en d itu res in e x ce ss o f $ 2 0 0 to su p p o rt o r o p p o se th e n o m in a tio n o r e lec tio n o f o n e o r m o re c a n d id a tes ” ); s ee i d. § 77

( r efe r r i ng t o di s cl os ur e r equi r ement s r el evantt o pol i t i cal comm i t t ees and other g rou p s, set fo rth in C o lo. R ev . S tat . § 1 -45 -10 8 o r an ysu cc esso r sec ti o n ). Fur t herm or e, i f a nonpr ofi ti deol ogi cal corpor at i on ( or“anyper s on”) funds el ect i oneer i ng comm uni cat i ons exce edi ng $1, 000 pery earfr om i t s gener al
c o rp o ra te tre a su rie s, it too m u st file a p p lica b le r e p o rts. S e c tio n 6 (1 ) o f A rticle X X V I I I det ai l s t hes e r equi r ement s , w hi l e § 6( 2) pr ohi bi t s corpor at e fundi ng of el ect i on eeri ng com m un i cat i on s: A nyper s on w ho expends one thous and dol l ar s orm or e percal endary ear o n elec ti o n ee ri n g co m m u n icati o n s sh all su b m itrep o rt s to the sec retary of s t at e i n acc or dance w it h the s chedul e curr ent l ys etfor th i n [C ol o. R e v . S tat. § ] 1 -4 5 -1 0 8 (2 ) . . . , o r a n ysu c c e ss o r se c tio n . S u c h re p o rts s hal l i ncl ude s pendi ng on s uch el ect i oneer i ng comm uni cat i ons , and the n a me , a n d a d d r e s s , o f a n yp e r s o n t h a tc o n tr i b u t e s m o r e t h a n t wo h u n d r e d a n d fif

tyd o llars p e r y e a r to su c h p e rso n d e sc rib e d in th is s ect i on for an el ect i oneer i ng comm uni cat i on. I n the cas e w here t he per s on i s a natur al per s on, s uch re por t s s hal l al s o i ncl ude the occ upat i on and em pl oy er of such natur al per s on. T he l as ts uch r eports hal l be fi l ed t hi r t yday s aft ert he appl i cabl e el ect i on. N o tw ith stan d ing an ysec ti o n to the co n tr ary , itsh all b e u n law fu l fo r a corpor ati o n orl aboror gani zat i on t o pr ovi de fundi ng foran el ect i oneer i ng comm uni cat i on; exce ptthatanypol i t i cal co m m i t t ee or s m al l donorcomm i t t ee e s t abl i s hed bys uch corpor at i on orl abor or gani zat i on m aypr ovi de fundi ng foran el ect i oneer i ng comm uni cat i on. C ol o. C ons t . art . X X V I I I , § 6. A ti s s ue her e i s w hetherC R L C i s s ubj ectt o A r t i cl e X X V I I I ’ s r eport i ng r equi r ement s and w hether§§ 3( 4) ( banni ng corpor at i ons fr om m aki ng expendi tur es t hatexpr es s l yadvoca t e the el ect i on ordefe atof a c andi dat e) , 6( 2) ( banni ng corpor at i ons fr om fundi ng el ect i oneer i ng comm uni cat i ons ) , and ( 2) ( 12)8

(d e fin in g p o lit ica l co m m itt e e ) o f A rticle X X V III a re u n c o n stitu tio n a l as a p p lied to C R L C . W e al s o di s cus s C R L C ’ s cont ent i on thatthes e pr ovi s i ons , al ong w i th § 2 (7 ), a re fa c ia lly v a g u e a n d o v e rb ro a d . B . C ol orado R i ght t o L i fe C om m i t t ee W e first su m m a riz e th e u n d isp u ted fa c ts re g a rd in g C R L C , d ra w n lar g e ly f ro m th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s o rd e r. See Col o. R ightt o Li f e C om m . , Inc. v. D avi ds on , 395 F. Supp. 2d 1001, 1007- 09 ( D . C ol o. 2005) . C R L C i s a t ax- exempt or gani zat i on under26 U . S. C . § 501( c) ( 4) and has a pol i cyof notcontr i but i ng t o, acc ept i ng contr i but i ons fr om , orengagi ng i n expr es s advoca cyr egar di ng, pol i t i cal par t i es orcandi dat es . L i kew i s e, i ti s notas s oci at ed w i th anypol i t i cal candi dat e, pol i t i cal part y , orcampai gn comm i t t ee, and i s notaw ar e of e verr ece i vi ng any d o n a tio n s a t th e re q u e st o f, o r so licite d b y , a p o lit ica l ca n d id a te, a p o lit ica l p a rty o r e le c te d o ffic ia l. I t h a s s e v e ra l c h a p te rs th ro u g h o u t th e S ta te o f C o lo ra d o . C R L C ’ s pol i cyi s nott o engage i n expr es s advoca cyorm ake di r ecti n- ki nd
c o n tr ib u tio n s . C R L C ’s c o rp o ra te o rg a n iza tio n a l d o c u m e n ts in d ica te th a t it s p u rp o se s a re to ( 1) pr om ot e r ever ence and r es pectforhum an l i fe w i thoutr egar d t o condi t i on, qual i t y , age, r ace , r el i gi on, cr eed, orcol or , w hetherbor n orunborn; and ( 2) educa t e the comm uni t yr egar di ng the dange r s of abort i on, euthanas i a, i nfant i ci de, and compul s or ys t er i l i zat i on as w el l as anyl egi s l at i on t hatw oul d al l ow the debas ementof ordes t r oyt he comm uni ty ’ s m or al fi ber ; and ( 3) encour age a9

favor abl e, s pi r i tual , phy s i cal , and cul tur al envi r onm entthatw oul d i m pr ove the qu al i t yof li fe co nsi st ent w i t h these purposes. C R L C seeks t o ach i eve these purpos es bycomm uni cat i ng w i t h the publ i c r egar di ng s uch i s s ues , pr ovi di ng in fo rm a tio n a b o u t ele c ted o fficia ls, a n d e n c o u ra g in g C o lo ra d o c iti z e n s to com m un i cat e w i t h thei r r epresent at i ves on these i ssues. C R L C w as notes t abl i s hed bya bus i nes s corpor at i on orl aboruni on, and has
n o sh a re h o ld e rs o r o th e rw ise a ffili a ted p e rso n s w h o w o u ld h a v e a c laim o n its asset s and ea rni ng s. C R L C has t w o types of m em bers: (1) supp ort i ng m em bers,
w ho i ncl ude any one w ho donat es m oneyt o the or gani zat i on, unl es s thatper s on as ks nott o be a mem ber ; and ( 2) vot i ng m ember s , w ho i ncl ude any one w ho
s uppor t s C R L C ’ s obj ect i ves , i ndi cat es a des i r e t o j oi n C R L C , and pay s the prescr i bed du es, un l ess C R L C ’s bo ard has w ai ved tho se dues. I ndi vi dual donor s near l yexcl us i vel yfund C R L C thr ough t hei rpay i ng of d u es. In 2 0 0 1 , C R L C h ad 1 , 5 2 9 d o n o rs, inclu d ing 1 5 w h o g av e $ 2 0 0 o r m o re. I n 2002, C R L C had 2, 101 donor s , i ncl udi ng 19 w ho gave $200 orm or e. I n 2003, C R L C had 1, 333 donor s , i ncl udi ng 7 w ho gave $200 orm or e. C R L C do es not have a p oli cyagainstaccep t i ng con tri bu t i on s fr om bu si ness corpor at i ons , and i tr ece i ved $50 i n corpor at e contr i but i ons i n eac h of 2001, 2002,
a n d 2 0 0 3 . I t s g r o s s r e v e n u e s a n d r e c e i p t s f r o m me mb e r s h i p d u e s fo rth e s a me y ear s w er e $121, 000, $132, 000, and $128, 000. A ddi t i onal l y , C R L C atone poi nt par t i ci pat ed i n a l ong di s t ance t el ephone s ervi ce c arr i erpr ogr am i n w hi chT he r ecor d i ndi cat es t hati n 2005, C R L C had a s i m i l arpr ogr am w i th a 4 companycal l ed A m er i vi s i on. 10 s ubs cr i ber s coul d des i gnat e i t as the r eci pi ent of a por t i on of thei r bi l l s . I n 2003, 4 CRL C r e c e i v e d $ 3 5 8 . 3 0 f r o m i t s p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n th i s p r o g r a m. C R L C a lso e n g a g e s in f u n d -ra isin g a c tiv iti e s in c lu d in g th e “ sa le” (v ia
su g g e ste d d o n a tio n s) o f “ b a b yfe e t p in s” a n d b u m p e r stic k e rs a t v a rio u s p u b lic event s l i ke the C ol or ado St at e Fai r . A l though t her e i s a s ugges t ed donat i on fort he i t ems, t heyar e oft en gi ven aw ay . C R L C ’ s tr eas ur eres t i m at ed thatC R L C r ece i ved
a p p ro x im a tely$ 3 0 0 p e r y e a r f ro m th e se c o m b in e d a c tiv iti e s. A d d iti o n a lly , ab o u t a deca de ago, C R L C r ece i ved i ncome w hen i tr ent ed i t s m ai l i ng l i s tt o a pol i t i cal
c a n d id a te fo r a sta te h o u se se a t. C R L C has nothad a pol i t i cal comm i t t ee orothers egr egat ed ac counts i nce 1986. I thas no r ecor d of eve rr ece i vi ng donat i ons earm arked forthe type of
comm uni cat i ons ati s s ue i n t hi s cas e. C R L C publ i s hes a per i odi c new s l et t er , t i t l ed The C ol or ado Li f eLight , w hi ch oft en ment i ons t he names of ca ndi dat es and thei rpos i t i ons on var i ous l i fe i ssues. C R L C dis t ri bu t es The C ol or ado Li f eLighty ear - r ound, i ncl udi ng w i thi n 30 day s befor e the pr i m aryel ect i on and 60 day s befor e the gene r al el ect i on. T he
n e w sle tter is se n t to m e m b e rs, a n d so m e tim e s to p ro sp e c tiv e m e m b e rs. In to tal, t he m ai l i ng i s sentt o ap proxim at el y3, 00 0 to 3, 50 0 reci pient s. C R L C a ls o m a in ta in s a w e b s ite th a t c o n ta in s a s e c tio n o n p o litic s a n d la w .11

S o m e a rticle s in th a t se c tio n m e n tio n c a n d id a tes a n d a re a v a ilab le to th e p u b lic y e a rr o u n d , i n c l u d i n g i mme d i a t e l yp r e c e d i n g e l e c t i o n s . Add i t i o n a l l y , CRLC
a d m its th a t it“ m ig h t” h a v e p lac e d v o ter g u id e s o n its w e b site in th e p a st. I n r ece ntel ect i on cy cl es , C R L C has m ade c om m uni cat i ons that unambi guous l yr efe r r ed t o candi dat es w i thi n 30 day s befor e pr i m aryel ect i ons and 60 day s befor e gene r al el ect i ons t o i nform vot er s of the ca ndi dat es ’ vi ew s on abor t i on. C R L C s pentover$1, 000 pery earon thes e comm uni cat i ons , w hi ch have i ncl uded vot ergui des , art i cl es on i t s w ebs i t e, r adi o ads , pr e- r ecor ded phone
m es s ages , di r ect - m ai l , and emai l . Som e exa m pl es i ncl ude:

• I n J ul y2000, C R L C s ent“R api d R es pons e C ar ds , ” w hi ch pr ovi ded the r es ponses o f pr i m arycandi dat es i n fi ve di s tr i ct s t o a C R L C s ur vey re g a rd in g life -re late d is s u e s , to in d iv id u a ls f ro m th o se fiv e d istric ts in i t s m ai l i ng l i s tdat abas e. I n i t s Sept embernew s l et t er , C R L C not ed that al l fi ve pr o- l i fe candi dat es had w on and expr es s ed conf i dence t hat“the c a rd s h a d a n im p a c t” o n th e e lec tio n re su lts. C R L C sp e n t $ 2 0 0 o n th is e ffo rt.

• B efor e the pr i m ar i es and gene r al el ect i ons i n 2000, C R L C ci r cul at ed t he resu lt s of i t s 2000 C andi dat e Q ues t i onnai r e, w hi ch pr ovi ded the res po nses of som e cand i dates t o a vari et yof ab ort i on and rel at ed is sues.

• I n A ugus t2002, befor e t he st at e pri m ary el ect i on, C R L C arr anged for a p re -re c o rd e d p h o n e c a ll to b e m a d e to id e n tifie d p ro -life su p p o rte rs in M or ga n Cou n t y b e fo r e a p r i ma ry e l e c t i o n i n whi c h J a c k Darn e l l and Gr e g Br o p h ywe r e ru n n i n g . T h e me s s a g e c o mp a r e d t h e v i e ws o f t h e t wo c a n d id a tes o n a b o rtio n , an d a sk e d th e re c ip ien ts to u rg e M r. D a rn e ll t o “aba ndo n hi s pr o- abor t i on vi ew s ” and t o “thank” M r . B r ophyfor d e fe n d i n g u n b o r n c h i l d r e n . C R L C s p e n t$ 3 3 5 o n th i s a c t i v i ty.

• I n A ugus t2002, C R L C , i n partner s hi p w i th the C h ri sti an C oal i t i on, s enta form l et t ert o r egi s t er ed pr o- l i fe v o te r s i n H ous e D i s tr i ct55 compar i ng t he tw o candi dat es vi ew s on abort i on. T h is le t t eras ked12

rec ipien ts, w h en v o ti n g in the elec ti o n , to h elp s top G ay le B e rr y ’s “extr eme pr o- abor t i on agenda , ” as w el l as ur gi ng r eci pi ent s t o “thank” S h a ri B jo rg lu n d fo r b e in g “ so lid ly p ro -life .” C R L C sp e n t $ 2 0 7 o n th is le tte r.

• I n A ugus t2002, C R L C publ i s hed Th e C ol or ado Li f eLight , w i th a s ubt i t l e “Spec i al R epor t– 2002 V ot erG ui de. ” A l though the fr ontpage w as devot ed t o gener al i n fo rm at i on, the r emai nderof the publ i cat i on r epor ted the re s pons es of 42 ca ndi dat es fors t at e orfede r al offi ce t o a C R L C ques t i onnai r e. I n t he O ct ober/N ovember2002 C ol o rado Li f eLight , C R L C ur ged r eci pi ent s t o vot e no on thr ee bal l ot m ea su res and publ i s hed a l i s tof C ol or ado ca ndi dat es w ho h ad b een e ndor s ed by t he N at i onal A bor t i on R i ght s A ct i on L eague .

• I n t he 2002 gene r al el ect i on, C R L C ran rad io ads on D enverand L o n g m o n t sta tio n s c o m p a rin g th e p a rtial-b irth a b o rtio n v iew s o f F o u rth C ongr es s i onal D i s t r i ctcandi dates S t at e Senat orSt an M at s unaka a nd M a rilyn M u sg ra v e . A ro u n d th a t sa m e tim e , C R L C a lso ra n o th e r ra d io ads enc ou ragi ng peo ple i n Sen . M at sunak a’s dis tri ctt o call him and ask h im to p a s s th e B o rn A liv e In fa n t P ro tec tio n A c t o u t o f h is s e n a te comm i t t ee. C . Pro c e dur al Backg r ound Be c a u s e o f

Ar t i c l e XX VI I I ’ s p r o h i b i t i o n s a n d r e g u l a t i o n s , CRLC d e t e r mi n e d i twou l d n o l o n g e re n g a g e i n s o me o f th e a b o v e a c t i v i t i e s . CRLC
s oughtdecl ar at oryand i nj unct i ve r el i ef. T he di s tr i ctcourtr evi ew ed the fol l ow i ng fi ve clai m s: ( 1) w hether§ 3( 4) ( a) ’ s ban on corpor at e contr i but i ons and expe ndi tur es is un c o n stitu tio n a l a s ap p lied to C R L C b e c a u se it is a n o n - p r o fit i deol ogi cal co rpora t i on t hatdoes notengage i n bus i nes s act i vi t i es and recei ves on l yi nsub st anti a l o r de m i nim i s contr i bu t i on s fr om bu si ness c o rp o ra tio n s; ( 2) w hether§ 6( 2) ’ s ban on di r ect corpor at e fundi ng forel ect i oneer i ng and comm uni cat i ons i s uncons t i tut i onal as appl i ed t o C R L C , fo rthe s a me r e a s o n t h a t§ 3 ( 4 ) ( a ) ’ s b a n i s u n c o n s t i tu t i o n a l a s a p p l i e d t o CRL C;13

(3 ) w h e th e r § 2 (1 2 )’s d e fin iti o n o f “ p o litic a l co m m itt e e ” is uncons t i tut i onal on i t s fac e and as appl i ed t o or gani zat i ons s uch as C R L C t hat do no thav e a m aj or purpo se of elect i ng cand i dates ; ( 4) w hether §§ 6 and 2( 7) , deal i ng w i th “e lecti oneer i ng comm uni cat i ons ” ar e i m perm i s s i bl yvague a nd overbr oad and cannotbe cons t i tuti o n all yappl i ed t o C R L C ’ s comm uni cat i ons notdi r ect l yor i ndi r ect l yadvoca t i ng t he el ect i on ordefe atof anycandi dat e; and ( 5) w hether § 3( 4) ( a) ’ s ban on corpor at e expendi tur es i s uncons t i tut i onal beca us e i ti s vague a nd overbr oad. B ot h part i es s oughts um m aryj udgm ent . T he di s tr i ctcourtrul ed “a s na r r owl ya s po s s i bl e , ” a nd a dd r e s s e d CR LC ’ s a s - a pp l i e d c ha l l e ng e s fi r s t . 39 5 F. Supp. 2d at1010. T he di s t r i ctcourtgr ant ed ea ch mot i on i n part , det erm i ni ng that A r t i cl e X X V I I I §§ 3( 4) ( banni ng corpor at i ons fr om m aki ng expendi tur es that expr es s l yadvoca t e the el ect i on ordefe atof a c andi dat e) and 6( 2) ( banni ng co rpo rati o n s fro m fu n d ing an elec ti o n ee ri n g co m m u n icati o n ) w ere uncons t i tut i onal as appl i ed t o C R L C beca us e i ti s exemptfr om s uch r es tr i ct i ons undert he pr i nci pl es of M CFL . T h e d istri ct co u rtalso fo u n d that § 2 (12 )’s d e fi n i t i o n o f

“ p o l i t i c a l c o mmi t t e e ” was u n c o n s t i tu t i o n a l a s a p p l i e d t o CRLC beca us e i tfai l ed t o i ncl ude B uckley ’s “ m ajo r p u rp o s e ” te s t. T he di s t r i ctcour tr ej ect ed, ordecl i ned t o r eac h, C R L C ’ s r emai ni ng fac i al
c h a llen g e s. S p e c ifica lly , itrejec ted C R L C ’s v a g u e n e ss a n d o v e rb re a d th chal l enges t o § 6( 1) ( out l i ni ng r eport i ng r equi r ement s foranyper s on w ho expends
m or e than $1, 000 percal endary earon el ect i oneer i ng comm uni cat i ons ) , not i ng th a t “[ a ] sta tu te m a yn o t b e in v a lid a ted sim p lyb e c a u se so m e p e rso n s’ a rg u a b ly14

pr ot ect ed conduc tm ayorm aynotbe ca ughtorchi l l ed bythe s t atut e. ” Id. (i nternal quotat i on m arks om i t t ed). S i m i l arl y , i trej ect ed C R L C ’s vag uen ess chall eng e t o § 2(7)’ s defi nit i on of “e l ect i on eeri ng com m un i cat i on s” becau se

“ C R L C h a s n o t d e m o n stra ted th a t [ § 2 (7 ) is] im p e rm iss ib lyv a g u e in a ll o f its appl i cat i ons . ” Id
. a t 1 0 1 7 . T he di s t r i ctcour tdecl i ned t o r eac h C R L C ’ s fac i al chal l enges t o §§ 3( 4) ( banni ng corpor at i ons fr om m aki ng expendi tur es thatexpr es s l yadvoca t e the el ect i on ordefe atof a c andi dat e) , 6( 2) ( banni ng corpor at i ons fr om fundi ng an el ect i oneer i ng comm uni cat i on) , and § 2( 12) ( defi ni ng pol i t i cal comm i t t ee) becau se i thad al readygrant ed C R L C a narr ow er r em edyw hen i tfou nd these
s e c t i o n s u n c o n s t i tu t i o n a l a s a p p l i e d t o CRL C. I I . DI S CU S S I ON T h e S e c re tar yc h a llen g e s th e d istric t co u rt’s g ra n t o f su m m a ryju d g m e n t to C R L C an d enjoinm en t of h is en fo rce m en t of

ce rt ain p rov isi o n s o f A rt icl e X X V III agai ns tC R L C . Speci fi cal l y , t he Secr et arydi s put es the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s rul i ngs t hat (1 ) § 3 (4 ) (w h ich b a n s c o rp o ra tio n s f ro m m a k in g e x p e n d itu re s th a t ex p re ss ly
a d v o c a te th e e lec tio n o r d e fe a t o f a c a n d id a te) is u n c o n stitu tio n a l as a p p lied to C R L C beca us e C R L C engage d onl yi n de mi ni m i s bus i nes s act i vi t i es and r ece i ved onl yde mi ni m i s contr i but i ons fr om bus i nes s corpor at i ons ; ( 2) § 6( 2) ( w hi ch bans
c o rp o ra tio n s f

ro m p ro v id in g f

u n d in g fo r e lec tio n e e rin g c o m m u n ica tio n s) is
uncons t i tut i onal as appl i ed t o C R L C forthe s ame r eas on; and ( 3) § 2( 12) ( defi ni ngC R L C al s o ar gues t hat§ 3( 4) ’ s pr ohi bi t i on agai ns ta corpor at i ons m aki ng 5 expendi tur es expr es s l yadvoca t i ng the el ect i on of defeatof a c andi dat e, s houl d be decl ar ed uncons t i tut i onal bot h as appl i ed and faci al l yvoi d forvaguene s s fort he a d d i t i o n a l r e a s o n t h a tt h i s s e c t i o n d o e s n o ts a t i s f y B uckley ’ s expr es s advoca cy re q u ire m e n t. A p le’ s B r. at 4 6 -4 8 . C R L C a c k n o w led g e s th a t itd id n o t ra ise th is “ e x p re s s a d v o c a c y ” a s -a p p lie d c h a lle n g e in its c o m p la in t. Id. at46- 47. W e agr ee w i t h t he Secr et aryt hatatm os tC R L C ar gued befor e the di s tr i ctcourtt hat§ 3( 4) sh o u ld b e d ec lared fa ciall yinv ali d . T h e d istri ct co u rtd ec li n ed to ad d ress C R L C ’s fa c ial c h a llen g e to th is s e c tio n , h a v in g fo u n d § 3 (4 ) u n c o n stitu tio n a l as a p p lied to C R L C b e c a u se C R L C w a s a n e x e m p t M CFL ent i ty . B eca us e w e agr ee w i th the di s t r i ctcourt ’ s appr oach, and bec aus e w e gene r al l y“dec l i ne t o cons i deri s s ues fir s t r a is e d o n a p p e a l,” w e w ill n o t a d d re s s th is b e la te d a rg u m e n t. Sus s m an v. P at t ers on , 1 0 8 F . 3 d 1 2 0 6 , 1 2 1 0 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ). W e mustfi r s tbr i efl yaddr es s t he Secr et ary ’ s t hr es hol d ar gum entt hat 6 C R L C l acks s t andi ng t o chal l enge § 2( 12) , w hi ch def i nes a pol i t i cal comm i t t ee, beca us e C R L C has notes t abl i s hed ei thera s egr egat ed fund ora pol i t i cal comm i t t ee. (continued...) 15 pol i t i cal comm i t t ee) i s uncons t i tut i onal as appl i ed t o C R L C forempl oy i ng a t r i ggerof $200 w i t houtcons i der at i on of w hetherthe or gani zat i on’ s “maj or p u rp o s e ” i s t h e n o m i n a t i o n o re l e c t i o n o f c a n d i d a t e s a s r e q u i r e d b y B uckley . We
m ustrej ectt he S ecret ary ’s chall eng es. I n i t s cr os s - appea l , C R L C chal l enges the fa ci al val i di tyof thr ee s ect i ons : §§ 6( 2) ( banni ng corpor at i ons fr om fundi ng el ect i oneer i ng comm uni cat i ons ) , 2( 7) ( defi ni ng el ect i oneer i ng comm uni cat i ons ) , and 2( 12) ( defi ni ng pol i t i cal
c o mmi t t e e ) . Be c a u s e we a g r e e wi th th e d i s tr i c tc o u r t ’ s d e t e r mi n a t i o n th a tCRLC

5 is a n e x e m p t M CFL ent i t y , w e nee d notaddr es s C R L C ’ s chal l enges t o §§ 6( 2) and 2 ( 7 ) . As t o i t s fa c i a l c h a l l e n g e t o § 2 ( 1 2 ) , we a g r e e wi th th e d i s tr i c tc o u r tth a twe need notr eac h t hi s cont ent i on. 6(...continued) 6 U nderA r t i cl e I I I , s t andi ng r equi r es a partyt o s how actual i nj ury , a ca us al re latio n b e tw e e n th a t inju rya n d th e c h a llen g e d c o n d u c t, an d th e lik e lih o o d th a t a fa v o ra b le d e c is io n b yth e c o u rt w ill r e d re s s th e a lle g e d inju ry. Luj an v. D e fen d e rs o

f th e Wild lif

e , 504 U . S. 555, 560- 61 ( 1992) . I ndepende ntcampai gn exp end i tures const i tute “pol i t i cal exp res si on atthe co re of ou r el ect oral process and of the Fi r s tA m endmentfr eedoms. ” B uckley , 424 U . S. at39 ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) . T he mer e fa ctthatC R L C i s a corpor at i on does not re m o v e its s p e e c h f

ro m th e p ro te c tiv e a m b it o f th e F ir s t A m e n d m e n t. See , e .g ., F irs t Na t’l B a n ko

f B o sto n v . B e llo tti , 435 U . S. 765, 777 ( 1978) ( “The i nher ent w or t h of the s peec h i n t erm s of i t s capa ci tyfori nform i ng the publ i c does not depend upon the i dent i t yof i t s s our ce, w hethercorpor at i on, as s oci at i on, uni on, or i ndi vi dual . ”) . T her e i s no doubtthatr equi r i ng corpor at i ons t o m ake i ndepende nt expendi tur es onl yt hr ough s egr egat ed funds , s uch as pol i t i cal ordonor c o m m itte e s , b u rd e n s c o rp o ra te f re e d o m o f

e x p re s s io n . M CFL , 4 7 9 U .S . a t 2 5 2 . H er e, i n addi t i on t o di s cl os ur e r equi r ement s , the s t atut e pr ovi des var i ous p e n a ltie s , s ee C ol o. C ons t . art . X X V I I I , § 10, and atno poi nti n thi s l i t i gat i on has th e S e c re ta ry su g g e s te d th a t h e w ill n o t s e e k e n fo rc e m e n t o f th e s e p e n a ltie s . B e c a u se th e S e c re tar yh a s in d ica ted u n e q u iv o c a llyh is in ten t to p ro se c u te C R L C , C R L C h a s s u ffe re d th e c o n stitu tio n a llysu fficie n t inju ryo f se lf-c e n so rsh ip t hroug h the chi l l i ng of p rot ect ed F i rs tA m end m ent act i vity , renderi ng i t s asa p p lied c h a llen g e to § 2 (1 2 ), an d , fo r th a t m a tter, its o th e r c h a llen g e s to A rticle X X V I I I , j us t i ci abl e. C R L C al s o s uffe r s A r t i cl e I I I i nj ur yw hen i tm us tei ther m ake s i gni fi cantchange s t o i t s oper at i ons t o obeythe r egul at i on, orr i s k an i nves t i gat i on and ci t at i on. T he Secr et aryr i ght ful l ydoes notchal l enge the C R L C ’s s tan d in g o n o th e r g ro u n d s, a n d w e h o ld th a t C R L C h a s s tan d in g to chal l enge port i ons of A r t i cl e X X V I I I beca us e i tundi s put edl ym eet s the ca us at i on a n d re d re s s ib ility p ro n g s o f th e s ta n d in g te s t. A ccor di ngl y , beca us e the cha l l enged s ect i ons of A r t i cl e X X V I I I i nfr i nge on F ir st A m en d m en t r igh ts, the S ec retaryb ea rs th e b u rde n o f p rov ing theyare c o n s t i tu t i o n a l a s a p p l i e d t o CRL C. 16 A . T he Secre t ary’s A ppeal W e r evi ew t he di s t r i ctcourt ’ s gr antof s um m aryj udgm entde novo, appl y i ng th e s a m e s ta n d a rd s u s e d b yth e d is tr ic t c o u rt . Hom ans v. C i t y of A l buquer que , 366 F. 3d 900, 903 ( 10t h C i r . 2004) . “W e al s o r evi ew the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s fi ndi ngs of17

c o n s titu tio n a l fa c t in a F ir s t A m e n d m e n t c la im a n d c o n c lu s io n s o f la w d e n o v o . B eca us e thi s deci s i on i m pl i cat es Fi r s tA m endmentfr eedoms, w e per form an i ndepende ntexami nat i on of the w hol e r ecor d i n or dert o ens ur e thatthe j udgm ent pr ot ect s t he r i ght s of fr ee e xpr es s i on. ” Faus t i n v. C i t y & C ount

y of D enve r , 423 F . 3 d 1 1 9 2 , 1 1 9 5 -96 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) (i n terna l ci tat ion o m itted). Pl ai nt i ffs m aybr i ng t w o t ypes of Fi r s tA m endmentchal l enges t o a governm ent ’ s pol i cy , fac i al and as
- appl i ed. A fac i al chal l enge c ons i der s the
r es t r i ct i on’ s appl i cat i on t o al l conce i vabl e part i es , w hi l e an a s - appl i ed cha l l enge te s ts th e a p p lic a tio n o f th a t r e s tr ic tio n to th e fa c ts o f a p la in tiff ’s c o n c re te c a s e . L i ke the di s t r i ctcourt , w e cons i derthe di s pos i t i on of C R L C ’ s as - appl i ed
c h a l l e n g e s fi r s t , a n d th e n tu r n t o i t s fa c i a l c h a l l e n g e s b e l o w, i n s e c t i o n I I . B. In a n a s-a p p lied c h a llen g e in th e c o n tex t o f c a m p a ig n fin a n c e law s, “ lim its on pol i t i cal expendi tur es des erve cl os ers crut i nythan r es tr i ct i ons on pol i t i cal contr i but i ons . ” FE C v
. Co l o . R e p u b l i c a n Fe d ’ lCa mp a ig n Co mm. , 533 U . S. 431, 4 4 0 (2 0 0 1 ); s ee FE Cv . Wisc . R ig h t to L ife , Inc. , 127 S. C t . 2652, 2664 ( 2007) (“ W RTL ”) ( “B eca us e [the s t atut e] bur dens pol i t i cal s peec h, i ti s s ubj ectt o s tr i ct sc ru tin y .”); B uckley v . A m er i can C ons t ’ lLaw Found. , Inc. , 525 U . S. 182, 207 ( 1 9 9 9 ) ( “ Wh e n a S t a t e ’ s e l e c t i o n l a w d i r e c t l yr e g u l a t e s c o r e p o l i t i c a l s p e e c h , we have a l w ay s s ubj ect ed the cha l l enged r es tr i ct i on t o s tr i cts crut i nyand r equi r ed that th e le g is la tio n b e n a rr o w ly ta ilo re d to s e rv e a c o m p e llin g g o v e rn m e n ta l in te re s t.” ). T he part i es do notdi s put e thatt hi s cas e i nvol ves A r t i cl e X X V I I I ’ s r es tr i ct i ons onIn h is o p e n in g b rie f, the S e c re tar yin sis ts th a t C R L C m u st e sta b lish , in its 7 as - appl i ed cha l l enges , t hatt he s t at e l aw i s uncons t i tut i onal as appl i ed t o i tbey ond a r eas onabl e doubt . T he Secr et ary ’ s pr opos i t i ons ar e ac cur at e, exce pti n the i ns t ance of a l aw , l i ke A r t i cl e X X V I I I , t hatm i ght“i nfr i nge[] on the exe r ci s e of Fi r s tA m endmentr i ght s . ” A s s ’ n of C m t y. O rgs . f

orR ef or m Now v. Muni ci

pal i t y of G olden , 744 F. 2d 739, 744 ( 10t h C i r . 1984) . T he Secr et aryr el uct ant l yconce des th is p o in t in h is re p lyb rie f, an d a c k n o w led g e s th a t in su c h a c a se , as h e re , “its p rop o n e n t bear s t he bur den of e s t abl i s hi ng i t s cons t i tut i onal i ty . ” Id. (e m p h a sis su p p lied ); W

RTL , 127 S. C t . at2664 ( “U nders tr i cts crut i ny , t he G overnm entm ust pr ove thatappl y i ng [the s t atut e] t o [the or gani zat i on’ s ] ads fur ther s a compel l i ng i nt er es tand i s narr ow l yt ai l or ed t o achi eve thati nt er es t ”) . W e appr eci at e the Secr et ary ’ s candor , even i f a bi tbel at ed. 18 pol i t i cal expendi tur es , and thatpol i t i cal expendi tur es ar e s ubj ectt o s tr i ct 7
s c ru t i n y. Hom ans , 3 6 6 F . 3 d at 90 6 (co n clud ing “the stan d ard fo r ex p en d itu re lim its o p e ra te s id e n tic a lly to s tr ic t s c ru tin yre v ie w ” ). H e n c e , “ to b e u p h e ld , . . . t he ca m pai gn- expendi tur e r es t r i ct i ons m us tbe both narr ow l yt ai l or ed and
nece s s aryt o s erve a c om pel l i ng s t at e i nt er es t . ” Id. (in ter n a l cita tio n s o m itt e d ); s ee W RTL , 127 S. C t . at2664. 1. A s - appl i ed cha l l enge t o A r t i cl e X X V I I I §§ 3( 4) ( banni ng corpor at i ons fr om m aki ng expendi tur es thatexpr es s l yadvoca t e the el ect i on ordefe atof a c andi dat e) and 6( 2) ( banni ng corpor at i ons fr om fu n d ing an elec ti o n ee ri n g co m m u n icati o n ) T he di s t r i ctcour tconcl uded thatC R L C i s exemptfr om bot h § 3( 4) ’ s ban on
corpor at e expe ndi tur es t hatexpr es s l yadvoca t e the el ect i on ordefe atof a candi dat e and § 6( 2) ’ s ban on a c orpor at i on’ s fundi ng of el ect i oneer i ng comm uni cat i on beca us e C R L C r ece i ves onl yde mi ni m i s contr i but i ons fr om b u sin e ss c o rp o ra tio n s. T h e S e c re tar ya rg u e s th a t any bus i nes s contr i but i on19

fo rec lose s ex em p ti o n fro m § § 3 (4) a n d 6 (2).

a . M CFL exempt i on I n M CFL , th e F e d e ra l E le c tio n C o m m is s io n (“ F E C ” ) c h a rg e d M C F L , a n o n p ro fit m e m b e rsh ip c o rp o ra tio n c re a ted to o p p o se a b o rtio n rig h ts, w ith vi ol at i ng t he Feder al E l ect i on C ampai gn A ctof 1971 ( “FE C A ”) , 86 St at . 11, as amended, 2 U . S. C . § 441b, bydi s tr i but i ng a vot ergui de i n the 1978 congr es s i onal
e le c tio n . 4 7 9 U .S . a t 2 4 4 -4 5 . W h e n M C F L re f u s e d to p a ya fin e , th e F E C s u e d . M C F L claim ed F E C A ab ri d g ed it s F ir st A m en d m en t r igh ts, an d the S u p rem e C o u rt agr eed. T he C our tfi r s tr ei t er at ed thati ndepende ntexpendi tur es coul d notbe
re g u la te d a s s tr ic tly a s c o n tr ib u tio n s . Id. at 25 9 -60 . Ind ep en d en t exp en d itu res a re sim ilar to p u re iss u e d isc u ss io n a n d th e re fo re re m a in fa r re m o v e d f ro m th e v a lid
s ta te in te re s t o f

p re v e n tin g e le c tio n c o rr u p tio n . Id. T he C our tal s o hel d t hatFE C A coul d be appl i ed t o bus i nes s corpor at i ons and otherent i t i es t hatpr es ent ed s om e dange rof “unfai rdepl oym entof w eal th for pol i t i cal purpos es . ” Id. a t 2 5 9 . “D ire c t co rp o ra te s p e n d in g o n p o lit ica l ac tiv ity
r ai s es t he pr os pectt hatr es our ces amass ed i n the ec onom i c mar ketpl ace m aybe
us ed t o pr ovi de an unfai radvant age i n the pol i t i cal m arketpl ace . ” Id. at258. T he C our tobs erved thatt he conc erns m ot i vat i ng pr ohi bi t i on of corpor at e pol i t i cal
s pendi ng w er e abs enti n r egar d t o M C FL , how ever , beca us e “[ v] ol unt arypol i t i cal
as s oci at i ons do nots uddenl ypr es entthe s pect erof corrupt i on m er el ybyas s um i ng t he corpor at e form . ” Id. at263. I n del i neat i ng thi s exempt i on, the C our tci t edSpeci fi cal l y , t he Secr et arynot es thatC R L C “does nothave a pol i cy 8 agai ns tengagi ng i n bus i nes s act i vi t i es and on occ as i on has s ol d i t s t el ephone l i s t . ” A pl t ’ s B r . at28. T he Secr et aryal s o s t at es t hatC R L C “has gener at ed a s m al l i ncome str eam bys el l i ng i t s m ai l i ng l i s t . ” C R L C cl ar i fi es t hatt hi s “s al e” w a s a o n e -tim e re n tal o f its m a ili n g (a n d n o t tele p h o n e ) list fo r a sm a ll u n s p e c ifie d a m o u n t. Id
. a t 1 0 ; A p le’ s B r. at 3 . T h e S e c re tar yd o e s n o t d isp u te th a t th is iso late d tra n sa c tio n g e n e ra ted m in im a l in c o m e . W e h o ld th a t th is a c tiv ity d o e s n o t s u g g e s t C R L C e n g a g e s in b u s in e s s a c tiv itie s . See D ay v. Hol ahan , 34 F. 3d 1356, 1364 ( 8th C i r . 1994) ( r ej ect i ng s t at e’ s ar gum ent conce r ni ng a put at i ve M CFL nonpr ofi tcorpor at i on’ s bus i nes s act i vi t i es t hat in c lu d e d th e re g u lar re n tal o f m a ili n g list an d se lli n g o f a d v e rtise m e n ts in its n ew slet ter th at ge n era ted m inim al i n co m e). S im il arly , C R L C ’s m inim al sales o f “ b ab yfe et” p ins a n d b u m p er sti ck ers (continued...) 20 t h r e e “ e s s e n t i a l ” fe a tu r e s o f M CFL: (1) t he en t i t yw as form ed fo r the p urpose o f prom oti ng po l i t i cal i deas, a n d d id n o t en g a g e in b u sin e ss a c tiv iti e s; ( 2) i thad no s har ehol der s orother s w i th a cl ai m t o i t s as s et s or earni ngs ; and (3) i tw as not form ed b ya corpo rat i on , and had a po l i cyagainst accep t i ng corporat e con t ri bu t i on s. Id . a t 2 6 3 -6 4 . A s not ed above , C ol or ado’ s campai gn fi nance amendm enti ncl udes an e x e m p tio n fo r s u c h c o rp o ra tio n s . See C o lo . C o n s t. a rt . X X V II I, § 3 (4 )( b ). A l t hough t he pr ohi bi t i on on corpor at e fundi ng of el ect i oneer i ng comm uni cat i ons d o e s n o t ex p licitlyc o n tain th e sa m e e x e m p tio n , the S e c re tar yp ro m u lg a ted R u le 4. 13, w hi ch cons t rues § 6( 2) t o excl ude M CFL corporat i on s. T he part i es do notdi s put e thatC R L C s at i s fi es the s econd pr ong. A l though t he Secr et ary does not conce de t hat C R L C has s at i s fi ed the fi r s t pr ong, he foc us es 8(...continued) 8 do notpr ecl ude i tfr om qual i fy i ng as an M CFL- exemptcorpor at i on. Such act i vi t i es cannotbe cl as s i fi ed as “bus i nes s act i vi t i es . ” S e e M CFL , 479 U . S. at 263 ( “I f pol i t i cal fundr ai s i ng event s ar e expr es s l ydenomi nat ed as r eques t s for contr i but i ons t hatw i l l be us ed forpol i t i cal purpos es , . . . thes e eve nt s cannotbe cons i der ed bus i nes s act i vi t i es . ”) . I ndeed, M C FL i t s el f enga ged i n var i ous fundr ai s i ng act i vi t i es s uch as gar age s al es , bake s al es , dance s , r aff l es , and p ic n ic s . See i d. at242. 21 hi s ar gum ent s on appea l on t he thi r d M CFL pr ong. I ti s the thi r d pr ong thatpos es t he rub: C R L C admi t s t hati tdoes nothave a pol i cyagai ns tacc ept i ng contr i but i ons , and thati thas acc ept ed contr i but i ons
— i n the amountof about$50 pery ear . I n r es pons e, t he Secr et ary“ar gues thatbeca us e the M CFL C our tdeemed t he cha r act er i s t i cs ‘ es s ent i al , ’ t he C our tcr eat ed a br i ghtl i ne al l ow i ng the g o v e rn m e n t to re g u late th e p o lit ica l ex p e n d itu re s o f a n yc o rp o ra tio n a s lo n g a s it does nots har e the pr eci s e M CFL char act er i s t i cs . ” 395 F. Supp. 2d. at1012. T he di s t r i ctcour tr efus ed t o adoptt he Secr et ary ’ s unbendi ng ar gum entthat“C ol or ado
m aypr ohi bi tdi r ectpol i t i cal expendi tur es byan advoc acycorpor at i on s uch as C R L C i f i taccep t s de m i nim is corpor at e contr i but i ons . ” Id. T h e S e c re tar ya c k n o w led g e s th a t § 3 (4 )(b ) a n d R u le 4 .1 3 c o m p o rt w ith M CFL . B u t, he argu es that byal l ow i ng an ex cepti on for de m i nim i s corporat i on s, t he di s t r i ctcour tdi ver t s t he ana l y s i s t o a r evi ew of a c orpor at i on’ s day
- t o- day act i ons . A s a pr act i cal m att er , “[t ] he court s and the publ i c do nothave the
r es our ces t o conducts uch r evi ew s . ” A pl t ’ s B r . at27. B eca us e “[ e] ven mi ni m al expendi tur es can ha ve a s i gni fi canti m pact , ” the Secr et aryar gues thatthe di s tr i ct22

c o u rt ’s a p p ro a c h is im p ra c tic a l a n d in v ite s c o rr u p tio n . Id
. W e di s agr ee w i th t he Secr et ary ’ s anal y s i s fors ubs t ant i al l ythe s ame r eas ons as th e d istri ct co u rt . T h e d istri ct co u rtreli ed in p art on the re aso n ing o f e v ery ot herci r cui tt o have a ddr es s ed thi s i s s ue, not i ng thati f corpor at e contr i but i ons m ade up a m i ni m al partof an or gani zat i on’ s r evenue , the M CFL exempt i on a p p lie s . S ee FE Cv. Na t’ l R if le A ss’n , 254 F. 3d 173, 192 ( D . C . C i r . 2001) ( hol di ng t hats pons or s hi p of non- pol i t i cal act i vi t i es , pr ovi s i on of non- pol i t i cal goods and s ervi ces s uch as m agaz i nes and ac ci denti ns ur ance t o m ember s , l ack of p o licya g a in st c o rp o ra te c o n trib u tio n s, a n d a c tu a l re c e ip t o f u p to $ 1 ,0 0 0 in
corpor at e contr i but i ons di d notturn an i ncorpor at ed advoc acygr oup “i nt o a p o tential co n d u itfo r co rpo rate fu n d ing o f p o li ti ca l acti v ity ”); N
. C
. R ightt o Li f e, In c . v. B a rtle tt , 1 6 8 F .3 d 7 0 5 , 7 1 4 (4 th C ir. 1 9 9 9 ) (la c k o f p o licya g a in st c o rp o ra te donat i ons and r ece i ptof up t o a “modes tper cent age [ 8% ] of r evenue ” fr om corpor at i ons di d notpr eventcorpor at i on fr om cl ai m i ng M CFL ex em p ti o n ); FE Cv. Sur vi valE duc. Fund, Inc. , 65 F. 3d 285, 293 ( 2d C i r . 1995) ( s t at i ng that“a nonpr ofi tpol i t i cal advoca cycorpor at i on, w hi ch i n fac tr ece i ves no s i gni fi cant fun ding from un i on s or busi ness corporat i on s, do es not s urr end er i t s Fir st A m endmentfr eedoms fort he w antof s uch a pol i cy ” and hol di ng thatl ack of pol i cyagai ns tcorpor at e contr i but i ons and ac tual r ece i ptof up t o 1% of funds fr om corpor at i ons di d notpl ace gr oup out s i de s cope of M CFL e x e m p tio n ); D ay v. Hol ahan , 34 F. 3d 1356, 1363- 65 ( 8th C i r . 1994) ( hol di ng thatthe l ack of pol i cy23

a g a in st c o rp o ra te d o n a tio n s a n d e n g a g in g in “ in c id e n tal” b u sin e ss a c tiv iti e s d id notputgr oup out s i de M CFL e x e m p tio n ). W e a g re e w ith th e se c o u rts th a t M CFL does notes t abl i s h an i m m obi l e s etof p a ra m e te rs . See, e .g ., D ay , 34 F. 3d at1367 ( “The st at e goes t oo fari n concl udi ng t hatt he fa ctual fi ndi ngs of M CFL tr a n s la te in to a b s o lu te s in le g a l a p p lic a tio n .” ). I ns t ead, t heyar e r eal l yfac t or s t o det erm i ne w hethera corpor at i on i s m or e l i ke the “typ e o f trad it ion al co rpo rati o [n ] org an ized fo r ec o n o m ic ga in,” or the v o lun tary pol i t i cal as s oci at i on of M CFL . M CFL , 479 U . S. at259 ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks
o m itt e d ); s ee i d. at 26 3 (“S o m e c o rpo rati o n s h av e fea tures m o re a k in to v o lun tary pol i t i cal as s oci at i ons t han bus i nes s fi r m s , and ther efor e s houl d nothave t o bear b u rde n s o n ind ep en d en t spe n d ing so lel yb ec au se o f th eir i n co rpo rated statu s. ”). A s p re v io u slyn o ted , C R L C re c e iv e s a p p ro x im a tely$ 5 0 o f c o rp o ra te f u n d i n g p e ry e a r . Th i s fi g u r e , “ [ b ] o th a s a p e r c e n t a g e o f i t s g r o s s i n c o me ( s i gni fi cant l yl es s t han 1% ) and an a bs ol ut e number , . . . coul d not“‘ have turned [C R L C ] i nt o a pot ent i al condui tforcorpor at e fundi ng of pol i t i cal act i vi ty . ’ ” 395 F. Supp. 2d. at1014 ( quot i ng Na t’ l R if le A ss’n , 2 5 4 F . 3 d at 19 2 ). b . P o st- M CFL Supr eme C our tdeci s i ons I n r es pons e t o t he di s t r i ctcourt ’ s anal y s i s , the Secr et arys ugges t s thatthe fourci r cui t s t hathave a ppl i ed the M CFL ex em p ti o n h av e m isco n stru ed the C o u rt ’s deci s i on. R ecogni zi ng t hateveryci r cui tthathas addr es s ed the i s s ue has al l ow ed fori nci dent al orde mi ni m i s corpor at e contr i but i ons , the Secr et aryar gues that24

S u p re m e C o u rt p re c e d e n t d icta tes w e sh o u ld a p p lyth e M C F L e x e m p tio n o n ly
s par i ngl y , ci t i ng A us t i n v. Mi chigan C ham berof C om m er ce , 4 9 4 U . S . 6 5 2 (19 9 0 ), FE Cv. B eaum ont , 539 U . S. 146 ( 2003) , and Mc Con n e l lv . FEC , 540 U . S. 93 (2 0 0 3 ). A f

ter re v iew in g th e se c a se s, w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e S e c re tar y ’s a rg u m e n ts
ar e unper s uas i ve. (i ) A us t i n v. Mi chigan C ham berof C om m er ce I n A us t i n v. Mi chigan C ham berof C om m er ce , 494 U . S. 652 ( 1990) , the Supr eme C our tr evi s i t ed the M CFL exempt i on w hen i taddr es s ed the M i chi gan C h am b er o f C o m m erc e’s (the “C h am b er’s”) a s-ap p li ed ch all en g e to M ichig an ’s C a m p a ig n F in a n c e A c t. Id . at655. I ni t i al l y , the Supr eme C our tr ej ect ed a faci al
o v e rb re a d th c h a llen g e to th e law o n th e g ro u n d s th a t itre g u late d “ c lo se lyh e ld
corpor at i ons t hatdo notpos s es s vas tr es ervoi r s of ca pi t al . ” Id . at 66 1 . T h e C o u rt det erm i ned thatal t hough s om e cl os el yhel d corpor at i ons m aynothave
acc um ul at ed s i gni fi cantamount s of w eal th, “theyr ece i ve fr om the St at e the
s peci al benef

i t s confe r r ed byt he corpor at e s tructur e and pr es entthe pot ent i al for d is to rt in g th e p o litic a l p ro c e s s ,” w h ic h ju s tifie d th e la w ’s g e n e ra l a p p lic a b ility. Id . A d d iti o n a lly , the C o u rt h e ld th a t alth o u g h th e C h a m b e r w a s a n o n -p ro fit i deol ogi cal corpor at i on, i tdi d notqual i fyas an M CFL corpor at i on underthe thr ee fa c to rs . Id . at 6 6 2 . F irst, th e C o u rt h e ld th a t alth o u g h th e C h a m b e r e n g a g e d in p o lit ica l ac tiv iti e s, its p rim a ryp u rp o se s in v o lv e d b u sin e ss a n d e c o n o m ic is su e s in25

c o n tr a s t to M C F L ’s p ri m a ry p o litic a l p u rp o s e . Id . Second, the C our tobs erved th a t: A lth o u g h the C h am b er a lso lack s sh are h o lders, m a n y o f it s m em b ers m aybe s i m i l ar l y r el uct ant t o w i thdr aw as m ember s even i f theydi s agr ee w ith th e C h a m b e r’s p o lit ica l ex p re ss io n , b e c a u se th e yw ish to b e n e fit f ro m th e C h a m b e r’s n o n p o lit ica l p ro g ra m s a n d to e sta b lish c o n tac ts w ith o t h e rm e m b e r s o f

t h e b u s i n e s s c o m m u n i ty. Id . a t 6 6 3 . A cc o rdin g ly , the C o u rtfo u n d that the C h am b er’s “m em b ers a re m o re s i m i l art o s har ehol der s of a bus i nes s corpor at i on than t o m ember s of M CFL . ” Id . F inally , the C o u rtrem ark ed that “m o re tha n three -qu arters o f th e C h am b er’s
m ember s ar e bus i nes s corpor at i ons , w hos e pol i t i cal contr i but i ons and expe ndi tur es can c ons t i tut i onal l ybe r egul at ed bythe St at e. ” Id . a t6 6 4 . C o n s e q u e n t l y, r ecogni zi ng t he C hamberas an M CFL corporat i on w ou l d cir cum ven tthe p urpose o f M ic h ig a n ’s c a m p a ig n fin a n c e la w . T h e S e c re tar ysu g g e sts th a t A u stin s uppor t s hi s theorythatthe C our ti nt ends a br i ghtcons t i tut i onal l i ne t o exi s tbetw een M CFL and non- M CFL en ti ti es. In fac t , t he C our t ’ s anal y s i s s ugges t s thatthe C hamber ’ s chal l enge t o M i chi gan’ s l aw fai l ed bec aus e i tw as cl os ert o a tr adi t i onal corpor at i on than a vol unt arypol i t i cal
as s oci at i on. G i ven C R L C ’ s cl os e r es embl ance t o a vol unt arypol i t i cal as s oci at i on, m uch l i ke the one a ti s s ue i n M CFL , w e a g ree w ith the d istri ct co u rtthat C R L C ’s
acc ept ance of de mi ni m i s contr i but i ons does nottr ans form i ti nt o a “pot ent i al condui tforcorpor at e fundi ng of pol i t i cal act i vi ty . ” 395 F. Supp. 2d. at101426

( quot i ng Na t’ l R if

le A ss’n , 2 5 4 F . 3 d at 19 2 ). (i i) FE Cv. B eaum ont I n B eaum ont , t he pl ai nt i ff w as an off i cerof N or th C ar ol i na R i ghtt o L i fe, In c . (“ N C R L ” ), a n o t- fo r- p ro fit c o rp o ra tio n o rg a n iz e d u n d e r N o rt h C a ro lin a la w . N C R L ’s fun ding cam e al m ostenti rel yfrom do nati on s fr om i nd i vidual m em bers, buti tal s o acc ept ed a s m al l amount i n corpor at e donat i ons . N C R L us ed i t s gener al t r eas ur yfunds t o m ake both i ndepende ntexpendi tur es and con tri bu t i on s to candi dat es fors t at e off i ce, as al l ow ed byN or th C ar ol i na l aw . N C R L chal l enged t he fe der al pr ohi bi t i on on contr i but i ons fr om i t s tr eas ur yt o candi dat es forfede r al offi ce.N C R L , l i ke C R L C , bas ed i t s chal l enge on M CFL , cont endi ng t hatas an M CFL ent i t y , N C R L had a c ons t i tut i onal l ypr ot ect ed r i ghtt o m ake c ontr i but i ons t o candi dat es . T he Four t h C i r cui tagr eed, hol di ng thatcontr i but i ons bys uch a gr oup, l i ke i ndepende ntexpendi tur es , fel l w i thi n the M CFL e x e m p tio n to p ro h ib itio n s o n c o rp o ra te a c tiv ity. T h e S u p re m e C o u rt re v e rse d , n o tin g th a t th e c a se w a s c o rre c tly char act er i zed a s a contr i but i ons , r atherthan an e xpendi tur es , cas e, and thus
s ubj ectt o r educe d s crut i ny . T he C our tadmoni s hed thatadvoca cycorpor at i ons m ayal s o r ai s e corrupt i on conce r ns , as theyt oo “bene fi tfr om s i gni fi cants t at ecr eat ed adva nt ages . ” B eaum ont , 539 U . S. at159- 60 ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks
om i t t ed) . T he C our tas s ert ed that“[n] on- pr ofi tadvoca cycorpor at i ons ar e,27

m o reo v er, no l es s s us cept i bl e than tr adi t i onalbus i nes s compani es t o m is us e as con du i ts forci r cumvent i ng t he contr i but i on l i m i t s i m pos ed on i ndi vi dual s . ” Id. (e m p h a s is s u p p lie d ). T he di s t r i ctcour ther e r ej ect ed the Secr et ary ’ s r el i ance on B eaum ont beca us e the ca s e foc us es on contr i but i ons , n o t expe ndi t ur es , and i s thus not
a n a lo g o u s . C

f
. B eaum ont , 5 3 9 U . S . at 16 4 (K en n ed y , J. , co n cu rri n g ) (M CFL

“ c o n tain s la n g u a g e su p p o rtin g th e C o u rt’s h o ld in g h e re th a t co rp o ra te
con tri bu t i on s can be r egul at ed more cl os el ythan corpor at e expe ndi tur es . ”) ( emphasi s s uppl i ed) . B eca us e w e foc us on A r t i cl e X X V I I I ’ s r es tr i ct i ons on expendi tur es , w e agr ee w i t h t hi s di s t i nct i on, and r ej ectthe Secr et ary ’ s ar gum ent o n a p p e a l. (i ii ) Mc Con n e l lv . FEC T hir d an d final l y , t he S ecret aryand A m i ci C uri ae C olor ado C om m on C ause a n d th e L e a g u e o f

W o m e n V o ter s o f

C o lo ra d o , tur n to Mc C o n n e ll fors uppor tof a br i ght
- l i ne appl i cat i on of M CFL . T heyfocus s peci fi cal l yon the Mc C o n n e ll C our t ’ s s t at ementt hat“[o] urdeci s i on i n M CFL r el at ed t o a ca r eful l ydefi ned
c a teg o ryo f

e n tit ies .” 5 4 0 U .S . at 2 1 0 . S tan d in g a lo n e , w e a c k n o w led g e th is l anguage l i m i t s t he br eadth of M CFL fac t or s ; how ever , the Mc C o n n e ll C ou rtal so d i s t i n g u i s h e d t h e c a s e b e fo r e i tf r o m M CFL : M C FL w as notes t abl i s hed bya bus i nes s corpor at i o n ora l aboruni on, a n d it is its p o lic yn o t to a c c e p t c o n tr ib u tio n s f ro m s u c h e n titie s . Th is pr eve nts s uch corp o r at i ons f r om s er vi ng as condui ts f orthe t ype ofW e not e thati n W RTL , the C o u rt c h o se n o t to “ p a ss o n [ a n ] a rg u m e n t” 9 t hatW R T L w as a nonpr ofi tadvoca cygr oup el i gi bl e forthe M CFL exempt i on “bec aus e W R T L ’ s funds fori t s ads w er e notder i ved s ol el yfr om i ndi vi dual contr i but i ons . ” 127 S. C t . at2673 n. 10. T he W RTL di s s entnot es t hatW R T L w as unabl e t o t ake a dvant age of t he M CFL exem pti on becau se i t“cho se[] t o serve as a funnel forhundr eds of thous ands of dol l ar s fr om othercorpor at i ons . ” Id. at2703 (S o u ter , J., d iss e n tin g ). W ith o u t m o re , w e c a n n o t h o ld th a t W RTL i m pact s our hol di ng t hatC R L C ’ s r ece i ptof de mi ni m i s bus i nes s contr i but i ons for ecl os es appl i cat i on of the M CFL e x e m p tio n to it. W e f u rth e r n o te th a t th e a m o u n ts o f m o n e yC R L C re c e iv e d f ro m its 10 p a rticip a tio n in L ife -L in e a n d sim ilar p ro g ra m s d o n o t q u a lifya s c o rp o ra te contr i but i ons r el evantt o t he M CFL ex em p ti o n . T h is pro g ram all o w ed su b scribe rs t o donat e a pe r cent age of t hei rphone bi l l paym entt o a nonpr ofi tor gani zat i on of t h e i rc h o o s i n g . I n 2 0 0 3 , CR L C r e c e i v e d a t o t a l o f $ 3 5 8 . 3 0 f

r o m th i s p r o g r a m. As t he F ou rth C i rcui t(and t he d i stri ctcou rti n thi s case) ob served , “w hil e t hese c o n trib u tio n s m a ytec h n ica llyc o m e f ro m th e p h o n e c o m p a n y , the yin fa c t re su lt fr om t he dec i s i ons of i ndi vi dual phone companycus t om er s . ” B a rtle tt , 168 F. 3d at (continued...) 28 di r ects pendi ng thatcr eat es a thr eatt o the pol i t i calm arket pl ace . ” Id. a t 2 1 1 (q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ) ( e m p h a s is s u p p lie d ). T h e d istric t co u rt a p p lied th e sa m e a n a ly sis . It n o ted th a t C R L C c lo se ly
r es embl ed M C FL ’ s pl ai nt i ff: “both ar e nonpr ofi t , non- s t ock corpor at i ons s har i ng verys i m i l arpurpos es , advoca cyact i vi t i es , and fundi ng m echa ni s m s , i ncl udi ng vol unt arydonat i ons fr om m ember s and i nform al fund- r ai s i ng s al es s uch as bake
s al es , i n the ca s e of M CFL , orba by
- fe e tpi n s a l e s i n the c a s e of CR LC . ” 39 5 F. Supp. 2d at1014. T he not abl e di ffe r ence betw een the tw o i s thatC R L C r ece i ves about $50 of corpor at e fundi ng per y ear . T hi s amount r epr es ent s l es s than one 9 per centof C R L C ’ s gr os s i ncome and does noti nvi t e the cr eat i on of a pol i t i cal condui tforcorpor at e fundi ng of pol i t i cal act i vi ty . W e agr ee w i th the di s tr i ct 10(...continued) 10 7 1 4 . Ac c o r d i n g l y , p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n s u c h a p r o g r a m d o e s n o ti mp l i c a t e th e s a me conce r ns r egar di ng t he pot ent i al fordi s t or t i ng the pol i t i cal pr oces s as di r ect corpor at e contr i but i ons do. W e al s o agr ee w i th the di s tr i ctcour t ’ s obs ervat i on t hat“eve n i f theyw er e corpor at e contr i but i ons , theyar e l i kew i s e d e m in im is ,” b e c a u se th e yw o u ld ra ise C R L C ’s to tal c o rp o ra te c o n trib u tio n s to “ a p p ro x im a tely $400, orappr oxi m at el y. 3% of i t s t ot al r evenue s . ” 395 F. Supp. 2d at1014, n. 10. 29 cour tt hatt he Secr et ary“has notdemonstr at ed that[§] 6( 2) ’ s i nfr i ngementupon C R L C ’ s pr ot ect ed s peec h i s s uppor t ed bya compel l i ng j us t i fi cat i on. . . . Forthe
s ame r eas ons , [§] 3( 4) ( a) , t o t he ext enti tpr os cr i bes a corpor at i on fr om m aki ng

‘ expendi tur es expr es s l yadvoca t i ng the el ect i on ordefe atof a c andi dat e’ exce pt t hr ough a comm i t t ee, i s uncons t i tut i onal as appl i ed t o C R L C . ” Id. at1014- 15. 2. A s - appl i ed cha l l enge t o A r t i cl e X X V I I I § 2( 12) ’ s defi ni t i on of “pol i t i cal comm i t t ee” T h e S ec retaryn ex t cha ll en g es th e d istri ct co u rt ’s gra n t of su m m ary j udgm entt o and enj oi nm entof hi s enfor cementof § 2( 12) agai ns tC R L C . Sect i on 2( 12) ( a) defi nes pol i t i cal comm i t t ee a s “anyper s on, otherthan a na tur al per s on, or anygr oup of tw o orm or e per s ons , i ncl udi ng natur al per s ons thathave a cce pt ed or
m ade c ont r i but i ons orexpendi tur es i n exce s s of $200 t o s uppor toroppos e the
n o m in a tio n o r e le c tio n o f o n e o r m o re c a n d id a te s .” C o lo . C o n s t. a rt . X X V II I, § 2( 12) ( a) . T he di s t r i ctcour ts t ruck dow n § 2( 12) as appl i ed t o C R L C . T he di s t r i ct c o u rt sta ted th a t “ B uckley es t abl i s hes thatr egul at i on s houl d be t i ed t o gr oups contr ol l ed bycandi dat es orw hi ch have a ‘ m aj orpurpos e’ of el ect i ng candi dat es . ” 395 F. Supp. 2d at1020. B eca us e “[ i ] t[w as ] notcl earw hetherthe fa ct s pr es ent ed30

w o u ld ex p o se C R L C to ‘p o li ti ca l com m ittee reg u lat ion , ’” the d istri ct co u rt
a s s u m e d th a t th e yd id a n d ru le d o n a n a s -a p p lie d b a s is . Id. a t 1 0 2 0 n .2 2 . H er e, t he Secr et aryar gues he ca n r egul at e an e nt i tyeven i f i tdoes nothave B uckley ’s “ m ajo r p u rp o s e ” o f n o m in a tin g , e le c tin g , o r d e fe a tin g a c a n d id a te . S ho uld this cou rtdis agree w i t h the Sec ret ary ’s propo sed broad regul at orypo w ers , h e u rg e s u s to c o n stru e § 2 (1 2 ) a s in c o rp o ra tin g th e “ m ajo r p u rp o se ” tes t, th u s s til l
re q u ir in g d is c lo s u re .

a . F e d e ra l re g u latio n o f p o lit ica l co m m itt e e s: B uckley ’ s “maj or pu rpose” t est R e g u latio n o f

“ p o lit ica l co m m itt e e s” b yc a m p a ig n fin a n c e law b e g a n w ith t he pas s age of

FE C A . A ccor di ng t o FE C A , a “pol i t i cal comm i t t ee” i s anygr oup th a t r e c e iv e s “ c o n tr ib u tio n s ” o r m a k e s “ e x p e n d itu re s ” e x c e e d in g $ 1 ,0 0 0 p e r ye a r. 2 U . S. C . § 431( 4) . A “contr i but i on” or“expe ndi tur e” i s anygi ftorpaym entm ade “fort he purpos e of i nfl uenci ng anyel ect i on forFeder al offi ce. ” Id. § 4 3 1 (8)(A )(i ), (9)(A )(i ). T he Supr eme C our tl at eradded i n B uckley , thata gr oup i s nota “pol i t i cal
c omm i t t e e ” un l e s s i t s “ maj orpu rpo s e ” i s t o i nfl ue nc e fe de r a l e l e c t i on s . 42 4 U. S.
a t 7 9 . T h e C o u rt e x p lain e d th a t: T he gene r al requi r ementthat“pol i t i cal comm i t t ees ” and c andi dat es dis cl ose t h e i r expen ditures c o u ldr a is e s i mi la rv a g u e n e s s p r o b l e ms , for “pol i t i cal comm i t t ee” i s defi ned o n ly in t erm s of amountof annua l “contr i but i ons ” and “expe ndi tur es , ” and c oul d be i nt erpr et ed t o r eac h gr oups engage d pur el yi n i s s ue di s cus s i on. T he l o w ercour t s have cons t rued the w or ds “pol i t i cal comm i t t ee” m or e narr ow l y . T o ful fi l l the31

p u rp o s e s o f

[ F E CA ] they n eed o nly encompa ss org a niz ati on s tha tare underthe contr olof

a candi dat e o r the m aj orpur pos e of w hi ch is the n o m in a tio n o re le c tio n o f a c a n d ida te . E xpendi tur es of ca ndi dates and of “pol i t i cal comm i t t ees ” s o cons trued can be as s um ed t o fal l w i thi n the core are a so u ghtt o be addr es s ed byC ongr es s . T heyar e, bydefi ni t i on, campai gn r el at ed. Id. ( footnot es om i t t ed) ( emphasi s s uppl i ed) . T hi s cons truct i on of the t erm pol i t i cal
comm i t t ee a s appl i ed t o non- candi dat e or gani zat i ons has come t o be know n as the

“ m ajo r p u rp o s e ” te s t. See FE Cv. A ki ns, 524 U . S. 11, 29 ( 1998) ( cons i der i ng w hethercert ai n of or gani zat i on’ s expendi tur es w er e mem ber s hi p comm uni cat i ons in co n n ec ti o n w ith ap p li ca ti o n o f th e “ ‘m ajor p u rpo se’” test ). I n M CFL , the C o u rtsu g g ested tw o m etho d s to d eterm ine a n o rga n izati o n ’s “maj orpurpos e”: ( 1) exami nat i on of the or gani zat i on’ s centr al or gani zat i onal p u rp o se ; o r (2 ) c o m p a riso n o f th e o rg a n iza tio n ’s in d e p e n d e n t sp e n d in g w ith o v e ra ll spend i ng t o d et erm i ne w hethert he p repond erance of e xp end i tures ar e for exp res s ad v o ca cyo r co n tr ibu ti o n s to c an d idates. 47 9 U . S . at 25 2 n . 6 (no ti n g that M C F L ’s

“ c e n tra l o rg a n iza tio n a l p u rp o se [ w a ]s is su e a d v o c a c y , alth o u g h it o c c a sio n a lly
e n g a g e [ d ] in a c tiv iti e s o n b e h a lf o f p o lit ica l ca n d id a tes ” ); s ee i d. at262 ( not i ng t hat“s houl d M C FL ’ s i ndepende nts pendi ng become s o ext ens i ve thatthe
or gani zat i on’ s m aj orpurpos e maybe r egar ded as campai gn act i vi ty , the
corpor at i on w oul d be cl as s i fi ed as a pol i t i cal comm i t t ee” ) . T hus , underFE C A , any gr oup t hat( 1) s pends m or e than $1, 000 i n a y ear , and ( 2) has as i t s “maj orpurpos e” th e in flu e n c in g o f

a fe d e ra l e le c tio n , s h o u ld b e c o n s id e re d a p o litic a l c o m m itte e .32

A s a pol i t i cal comm i t t ee, t he gr oup m us tadher e t o cert ai n r egi s tr at i on, o rg a n iz a tio n a l, r e c o rd k e e p in g , re p o rt in g , a n d d is c lo s u re re q u ir e m e n ts . See M CFL , 4 7 9 U .S . a t 2 5 4 (“ [ M ]o re e x te n s iv e re q u ir e m e n ts a n d m o re s tr in g e n t r e s tr ic tio n s . .

. m aycre ate a d isi n ce n ti v e fo r suc h o rga n izati o n s to e n g ag e in p o li ti ca l spe ec h . ”).

b. C ol or ado’ s r egul at i on of pol i t i cal comm i t t ees U nderC ol or ado’ s defi ni t i on of pol i t i cal comm i t t ees , anygr oup thats pends
m or e than $200 a y eart o s uppor toroppos e the nomi nat i on orel ect i on of one or
m or e ca ndi dat es i s s ubj ectt o t he St at e’ s var i ous admi ni s tr at i ve, or gani zat i onal , and
r epor t i ng r equi r ement s . I n concl udi ng that§ 2( 12) w as uncons t i tut i onal as appl i ed to C R L C , the d istric t co u rt n o ted th a t th e $ 2 0 0 trig g e r, sta n d in g a lo n e , is i ncompat i bl e w i t h a “maj orpurpos e” t es t : “[T] he amountof m oneyan or gani zat i on m us tacc eptors pend–$200–i s nots ubs t ant i al and w oul d, as a mat t er of comm on s ens e, oper at e t o encompas s a var i etyof ent i t i es bas ed on an expendi tur e thati s i ns ubs t ant i al i n r el at i on t o thei rover al l budget s . ” 395 F. Supp. 2d at1021. T he courtadded that , under§ 2( 12) ( a) , “an e nt i tythats pends $200, 000
on var i ous non- pol i t i cal act i vi t i es and donat es $200 ( 1/ 10 of 1% of i t s budget ) t o a candi dat e i s deemed a pol i t i cal comm i t t ee. ” Id . T he Secr et aryfi r s tar gues t he di s tr i ctcourterr ed w hen i tdet erm i ned § 2( 12)
w as uncons t i tut i onal as - appl i ed t o C R L C and thati t s “r eas oni ng [w as ] bas ed upon th e flaw e d a ss u m p tio n th a t th e m ajo r p u rp o se c o m p o n e n t is c o n stitu tio n a lly
c o m p e l l e d b y B uckley . . . . ” A pl t ’ s B r . at31. T he Secr et aryal s o s ugges t s thatI n fac t , t he Supr eme C our tr ece nt l ym ade c l eari n W RTL thatt he 11 di s t i nct i on betw een i s s ue advoc acyand expr es s advoca cycan be par amount i n t he c o n tex t o f

e lec tio n e e rin g c o m m u n ica tio n s: “ a c o u rt sh o u ld fin d th a t [ a d v o c a c y ] is th e f u n c tio n a l eq u iv a len t o f e x p re ss a d v o c a c yo n lyif th e [ a d v o c a c y ] is s us cept i bl e of no r eas onabl e i nt erpr et at i on othert han as an appe al t o vot e foror agai ns ta s peci fi c ca ndi dat e. ” 127 S. C t . at2667. A g a in re fe rrin g to el ect i oneer i ng comm uni cat i ons , t he C our tal s o “dec l i ne[d] t o adopta t es tfor as - appl i ed cha l l enges tur ni ng on the s peake r ’ s i nt entt o affectan el ect i on. ” Id. at 2665. T h e C o u rt re itera ted th e d ifficu lti e s o f re g u latin g iss u e a d v o c a c yin el ect i oneer i ng comm uni cat i ons : i f the r egul at ed advoc acy w as “ notexp res s advoca cyori t s equi val ent , t he G overnm ent ’ s t as k i s . . . form i dabl e. I tm us tt hen demonstr at e that[the r egul at i on] i s narr ow l yt ai l or ed t o s erve a c om pel l i ng i nt er es t . ” Id. at2664. 33 Mc C o n n e ll s om ehow r eeva l uat ed B uckley . T he Secr et aryaver s w i thoutm uch expl anat i on, t hat , “[a ] s w i t h t he di s t i nct i on betw een e xpr es s advoca cyand i s s ue advoca cy , t he i ncorpor at i on of a maj orpurpos e t es ti nt o the def i ni t i on of pol i t i cal
comm i t t ee ‘ w as an endpoi ntof [s t atut ory ] i nt erpr et at i on, nota fi r s tpr i nci pl e of
cons t i tut i onal l aw . ’ ” A pl t ’ s B r . at31- 32 ( quot i ng Mc C o n n e ll , 5 4 0 U .S . a t 1 9 0 ). B eca us e the di s t i nct i on betw een i s s ue advoc acyand expr es s advoca cyi s not cons t i tut i onal l ycompel l ed, he ar gues , ther e i s al s o no r equi r ed i ncl us i on of the “maj orpurpos e” t es t . “I n ot herw or ds , i ti s the ‘ m aj orpurpos e’ of the exp end i t ure and nott he ‘ m aj orpurpos e’ of the or gani zat i on thati s cons t i tut i onal l ys i gni fi cant . ” A plt ’s R eplyB r. at23 (em ph asi s suppli ed). T hu s, the S ecret aryseem s t o sug gest th a t th e $ 2 0 0 trig g e r sa tisfied th e m ajo r p u rp o se tes t. W e c a n n o t a g re e w ith th e S e c re tar y ’s b ro a d p ro p o sitio n s. F irst, th e re is 11 little q u e stio n th a t B uckley ’ s “maj orpurpos e t es t ” i s l eftunal t er ed i n the w ake of Mc C o n n e ll . See Pol i t i calC om m i t t ee Stat us , D ef i ni t i on of

C ontr i but i on, and34

A l l ocat i on f

orSepar at e Segr egat ed Funds and Nonconnec t ed C om m i t t ees , 69 Fed. R eg. 68, 056, 68, 065 ( N ov. 23, 2004) ( “[N ] o change thr ough r egul at i on of the defi ni t i on of ‘ pol i t i cal comm i t t ee’ i s m andat ed by[the B i part i s an C ampai gn R eform A ct , ( “B C R A ”) ] ort he Supr eme C our t ’ s deci s i on i n Mc C o n n e ll . T he ‘m ajor p u rpo se’ test i s a ju d ici al co n stru ct th at l im it s the rea ch o f th e statuto ry t r i gger s i n FE C A forpol i t i cal comm i t t ee s t atus . T he C om m i s s i on has been app l y i ng t his con structfor m anyy ears w i tho ut addi t i on al regul at orydefini t i on s, and i tw i l lcon t i nu e t o d o so in the fut ure .”) ( e m p h a sis a d d e d ); N
. C
. R ightt o Li f e, Inc. v. Leake , 482 F. Supp. 2d 686, 692 ( E . D . N . C . 2007) ( “I n Mc C o n n e ll , [r evi ew i ng B C R A ] t he maj orpurpos e t es tw as notdi r ect l yexami ned. T hus , the C our ti n Mc C o n n e lld id n o t o v e rtu rn o r c riticiz e th e m ajo r p u rp o se tes t, an d its
a u th o rityre m a in s in fo rc e .”); see also T re v o r P o tte r, Mc Con n e l lv . FEC Jur is pr udence and i ts Fut ur e Impacton C ampaign F i nance , 60 U. M IA M I L. R EV . 185, 198 ( 2006) ( “[T] he [ Mc C o n n e ll C our t ] i m pl i ci t l yaff i r m ed the cont i nui ng appl i cabi l i t yof the ‘ m aj orpurpos e’ t es tw hen i tr efe rr ed t o the ‘ m aj orpurpos e’ l anguage i n t he B uckley opi ni on. ”) ( ci t i ng Mc C o n n e ll , 540 U . S. at170 n. 64 ( quot i ng B uckley , 4 2 4 U .S . at 7 9 )). H e n c e , w e h o ld th a t C o lo ra d o ’s “ in ter e st in d isc lo su re . . . ca n b e m e t in a m a n n e r le ss re stric tiv e th a n im p o sin g th e f u ll panopl yof r egul at i ons t hatacc om panys t atus as a pol i t i cal comm i t t ee. . . . ” M CFL , 479 U . S. at262. Second, fors ubs t ant i al l yt he s ame r eas ons as the di s tr i ctcourt , w e agr ee that35

t he $200 tr i gger , s t andi ng al one, cannots erve as a pr oxyforthe “maj orpurpos e” t es tas appl i ed t o C R L C : “[T] he amountof m oneyan or gani zat i on m us tacc eptor sp e n d

– $ 2 0 0

– is n o t su b sta n tial a n d w o u ld , as a m a tter o f c o m m o n se n se , o p e ra te to e n c o m p a ss a v a rie tyo f e n tit ies b a se d o n a n e x p e n d itu re th a t is in su b sta n tial in
r el at i on t o t hei rover al l budget s . ” 395 F. Supp. 2d at1021. T h e c o u rt a d d e d th a t, under§ 2( 12) ( a) , “an e nt i t yt hats pends $200, 000 on var i ous non- pol i t i cal act i vi t i es and donat es $200 ( 1/ 10 of 1% of i t s budget ) t o a ca ndi dat e i s deemed a pol i t i cal
comm i t t ee. ” Id . S e c tio n 2 (1 2 ), as w ritten , is th u s u n c o n stitu tio n a l as a p p lied to CRL C.
c. N arr ow i ng cons t ruct i on T he S ecret arym ai ntai ns t hat i f w e ho l d thatthe “m aj or purpo se” t est survi ves Mc C o n n e ll , the n § 2 (1 2 )’s d e fin iti o n o f p o lit ica l co m m itt e e a s a p p lied to C R L C i s r eadi l ys us cept i bl e t o a narr ow i ng cons truct i on thatw i l l r emedyany c o n s titu tio n a l in fir m ity p re s e n te d b yth e o m is s io n o f th e “ m ajo r p u rp o s e ” te s t. See A pl t ’ s B r . at39 ( ci t i ng Ci t iz e n s f o rR e s p o n s i b l e Go v ’ tS ta t e P o l i t i c a lA c t i o n Co mm. v. D avi ds on , 23 6 F . 3d 11 74 , 11 94 (10t h C i r. 20 00 )) . H e avers that because C ol or ado’ s defi ni t i on of pol i t i cal comm i t t ee i s s ubs t ant i al l ys i m i l art o the fe der al d e fin iti o n , an d C o lo ra d o “ h a s u se d fe d e ra l ca m p a ig n law a s a tem p late fo r its
c a m p a ig n la w s ,” § 2 (1 2 ) s h o u ld w ith s ta n d c o n s titu tio n a l s c ru tin y . Id
. at39. G ener al l y , w e cons i dert he appl i cat i on of a na rr ow i ng cons truct i on i n the
c o n te x t o f

a fa c ia l c h a lle n g e . See Vi rgi ni a v. A m . B ooks el l ers A s s ’ n, Inc. , 48 4 U. S.36

383, 397 ( 1988) (“ It h a s lo n g b e e n a ten e t o f F irst A m e n d m e n t law th a t in det erm i ni ng a fa ci al chal l enge t o a s t atut e, i f i tbe ‘ r eadi l ys us cept i bl e’ t o a n arro w ing co n stru cti o n that w o u ld m ak e itco n sti tuti o n al, itw il l be u p h eld.”); Ci t iz e n s f

o rR e s p o n s i b l e Go v ’ tS ta t e P o l i t i c a lA c t i o n Co mm , 2 3 6 F . 3 d a t1 1 9 4 . As
w e la te r d is c u s s , w e d e c lin e to re a c h C R L C ’s fa c ia l c h a lle n g e to § 2 (1 2 ). H ow ever , r egar dl es s of w hetherw e cha r act er i ze the Secr et ary ’ s ar gum entas addr es s i ng a fa ci al oras - appl i ed cha l l enge, w e agr ee w i th the di s tr i ctcourtthatt he
s ta tu te d o e s n o t le n d its e lf to a n a rr o w in g c o n s tru c tio n . T o be r eadi l ys us cept i bl e t o a narr ow i ng cons truct i on, s uch a c ons truct i on m us tbe “r eas onabl e and r eadi l yappar ent . ” Stenberg v. C arha rt , 530 U . S. 914, 944 (2 0 0 0 ) (in ter n a l q u o tatio n m a rk s o m itt e d ). “[ W ]h e re a n o th e rw ise a c c e p tab le
c o n stru c tio n o f

a sta tu te w o u ld ra ise se rio u s c o n stitu tio n a l p ro b lem s, th e C o u rt w ill
c o n stru e th e sta tu te to a v o id su c h p ro b lem s u n les s s u c h c o n stru c tio n is p lain ly contr aryt o t he i nt entof C ongr es s . ” E dw ard J. D eB art olo C orp. v. F la. G ulf C oa st B ldg . & C o n str . Tra d e s C o u n c il , 485 U . S. 568, 575 ( 1988) . T hus , “w e w i l l not
r ew r i t e a s t at e l aw t o conform i tt o cons t i tut i onal r equi r ement s . ” A m . B oo ksel l ers A ss’n , 484 U . S. at397. H er e, i m por t ant l y , w e not e thatA r t i cl e X X V I I I ’ s defi ni t i on of “i s s ue comm i t t ee” i ncl udes t he very“maj orpurpos e” t es tati s s ue, s ugges t i ng thatthe l egi s l atur e w as w el l aw ar e of B uckley ’s r e q u ire m e n ts w h e n it d ra f ted A rticle X X V II I. S e e id
. § 2( 10) ( a) ( “‘ I s s ue comm i tt ee’ m eans anyper s on, otherthan aW e r ei t er at e thata part ys houl d nott ake a cr os s - appea l w hen i ts ucce eds 12 b e lo w . Lepr i no Foods
. C o. v. Factor y Mut . Ins . C o. , 4 5 3 F .3 d 1 2 8 1 , 1 2 9 0 (1 0 th (continued...) 37 n a tu ra l p e rs o n , o r a n yg ro u p o f tw o o r m o re p e rs o n s , in c lu d in g n a tu ra l p e rs o n s . . . [t ] hathas a maj orpurpos e of s uppor t i ng oroppos i ng anybal l oti s s ue orbal l ot ques t i on . . . . ”) . T he i ncl us i on of the “maj orpurpos e” t es ti n § 2( 10) ( a) i ndi cat es t hatt he dec i s i on n o t t o i ncl ude thi s r equi r ementi n the def i ni t i on of pol i t i cal
com m i t t ee w as del i berat e and con si st ent w i th the st at e ci t i zenry ’s i ntent . B ecause w e c an n o t r e-w ri te st ate law s to c o n fo rm w ith co n sti tuti o n al req u ir em en ts w h ere d o in g so w o u ld b e in c o n sis ten t w ith leg isla tiv e , o r h e re , the sta te c iti z e n ry ’s in ten t, we h o l d t h a tt h e d i s t r i c tc o u r tp r o p e r l yc o n c l u d e d th a t§ 2 ( 1 2 ) a s a p p l i e d t o CRLC
c o u ld n o t s a v e d b yin c o rp o ra tin g a n a rr o w in g c o n s tru c tio n . S e e B a rtle tt , 168 F. 3d 712- 13 ( 4t h C i r . 1999) ( s t r i ki ng dow n N or th C ar ol i na ca m pai gn fi nance s t atut e as fa ciall yv ag u e a n d o v erb roa d , n o ti n g that the c o u rtw as u n ab le t o ex cise the w o rd “i nci dent al ” fr om a s t atut e bec aus e “[ t ] o acc ept[N or th C ar ol i na’ s ] pr offe r ed i nt erpr et at i on w oul d r ead the r efe r ence s t o i nfl uenci ng el ect i ons ( a cl as s i c form of issue ad v o ca cy ) ri g h t ou t of the s tatu te”). B . C R L C ’ s C ros s - A ppeal I n i t s cr os s - appea l , C R L C chal l enges thr ee s ect i ons of A r t i cl e X X V I I I : §§ 6( 2) , 2( 7) , and 2( 12) . Fi r s t , i tar gues i n the al t ernat i ve, thati f w e r ever s e the di s t r i ctcourt ’ s deci s i on t hatC R L C i s an M CFL e n tity , the n w e m u st a d d re ss its fa cial ov erb rea d th an d v ag u en ess c h all en g es to § § 6 (2) a n d 2 (7). H o w ev er, 12(...continued) 12 C i r . 2006) ( “O nl ya part yaggr i eved bythe j udgm entm ayappea l , and [the defe ndant s w er e] 100% s ucce s s ful . ”) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed)
. 38 beca us e w e hol d t hatC R L C m eet s the M CFL exempt i on r equi r ement s , w e nee d not
a d d re s s th is a rg u m e n t. N ext , i tas ks us t o cons i derw hether§ 2( 12) ’ s defi ni t i on of pol i t i cal
c o mmi t t e e , wh i c h t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r td e c l a r e d u n c o n s t i tu t i o n a l a s a p p l i e d t o CRL C, is a lso fa c iallyu n c o n stitu tio n a l. “F a c ial c h a llen g e s s e e k to v in d ica te n o t o n ly i ndi vi dual pl ai nt i ffs ’ r i ght s butal s o thos e of a l l other s w ho w i s h t o engage i n the
s peec h bei ng pr ohi bi t ed. ” Fa u stin , 4 2 3 F .3 d a t 1 1 9 6 . T o s ucce ed, C R L C m us tes t abl i s h thatthe l aw , i n eve r y appl i cat i on, “cr eat es an i m perm i s s i bl e r i s k of s uppr es s i on of i deas , s uch as an or di nance thatdel egat es over l ybr oad di s cr et i on t o t he dec i s i onm aker , and i n cas es w her e the or di nance sw e e p s to o b ro a d ly , p e n a lizin g a su b sta n tial a m o u n t o f sp e e c h th a t is
cons t i tut i onal l ypr ot ect ed. ” Forsyth C ount y v. Nat i onal is tMovem ent , 50 5 U. S. 1 2 3 , 1 2 9 -3 0 (1 9 9 2 ) (in ter n a l cita tio n s o m itt e d ); Fa u stin , 423 F. 3d at1199 ( “The
overbr eadth cl ai m antbear s t he bur den of de m ons tr at i ng fr om the t extof the l aw and from actual fact , t hat s ub st anti al ov erbr eadth exis t s. ”). T his t ask present s a

“ h e a v yb u rd e n ” fo r t h e p la in tiff. Mc C o n n e ll , 540 U . S. at207. H er e, t he di s t r i ctcourtdet erm i ned i tneed notaddr es s C R L C ’ s fac i al
c h a llen g e to § 2 (1 2 ). W e a g re e w ith th e g e n e ra l p ro p o sitio n th a t a c o u rt sh o u ld “neve r. . . form ul at e a rul e of c ons t i tut i onal l aw br oaderthan i s r equi r ed bythe39

pr eci s e fa ct s t o w hi ch i ti s t o be appl i ed, ” and thatthe natur e of j udi ci al r evi ew c o n s tr a in s a fe d e ra l c o u rt to c o n s id e r o n ly th e c a s e th a t is a c tu a lly b e fo re it. Mc C o n n e ll , 540 U . S. at192 ( ci t i ng Uni t ed Stat es v. R ai nes , 362 U . S. 17, 21 ( 1960) and J a m e s B . B e a m D istill in gC o . v. G e o rg ia , 501 U . S. 529, 547 ( 1991) (B lac k m u n , J., c o n c u rrin g )); Uni t ed Stat es v. Nat ’ lTre as ur y Empl oyee s Uni on , 513 U . S. 454, 477- 78 ( 1995) ( “[A ] l t hough the occ as i onal cas e r equi r es us t o ent er t ai n a fac i al chal l enge i n or dert o vi ndi cat e a pa r ty ’ s r i ghtnott o be bound byan uncons t i tut i onal s t atut e, w e nei t herw antnorneed t o pr ovi de r el i ef t o nonpart i es w hen a na r r ow err emedyw i l l ful l ypr ot ectthe l i t i gant s . ”) ( i nt ernal ci t at i ons o m itt e d ); B r o a dr i c kv . Ok l a h o ma , 413 U . S. 601, 613 ( 1973) ( hol di ng thata rul i ng of fa ci al i nval i di t y“i s , m ani fes t l y , s tr ong m edi ci ne” a nd not i ng that“[i ] thas been
em p loy ed b ythe C o u rtsp aring lyan d o n lyas a lastreso rt ”). C R L C ’ s fac i al val i di t yar gum enti s s ucci nct : “bec aus e the appl i cat i on of pol i t i cal comm i t t ee s t atus t o gr oups l acki ng the r equi s i t e maj orpurpos e i s s el fevi dent l y‘ s ubs t ant i al , ’ . . . t he pr ovi s i on oughtt o be dec l ar ed uncons t i tut i onal on i t s fac e as w el l . ” A pl e’ s B r . at46. W e agr ee w i th C R L C thatthe appl i cat i on of § 2 (1 2 )(a ) to it cre a tes a n im p e rm iss ib le r isk o f th e su p p re ss io n o f

id e a s b e c a u se it
om i t s t he “maj orpurpos e” t es tand enc om pas s es gr oups w hos e “i nci dent al p u rp o s e ” m a yb e to e n g a g e in e x p re s s a d v o c a c y . B a rtle tt , 1 6 8 F .3 d a t 7 1 2 -1 3 . H ow ever , w i t houtm or e, w e ca nnots aythati n every appl i cat i on § 2( 12) w i l l be
uncons t i tut i onal and w e dec l i ne t o form ul at e a rul e of c ons t i tut i onal l aw br oader40

th a n is re q u ir e d . Mc C o n n e ll , 540 U . S. at192. T her efor e, w e dec l i ne t o r eac h C R L C ’ s fac i al i nval i di t ychal l enge. III . CONCLUSI ON T h is c a se d e m o n stra tes th e e x a c tin g sc ru tin ya c a m p a ig n re fo rm a c t w ill
u n d e rg o w h e n it reg u late s a n o rg a n iza tio n ’s e x p e n d itu re s. H e re , b e c a u se C R L C is
an M CFL -ex em p t entity , § § 3 (4)(a) a n d (6)(2 ) of A rt icl e X X V III are uncons t i tut i onal as appl i ed t o i t . Sect i on 2( 12) ( a) i s al s o uncons t i tut i onal as appl i ed t o C R L C beca us e i tdoes notcont ai n B uckley ’s “ m ajo r p u rp o s e ” te s t. A ccor di ngl y , w e A FFIRM the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s thor ough and w el l
- r eas oned
or dert o t he ext entt hati tgr ant ed s um m aryj udgm enti n partand affor ded i nj unct i ve re lie f to C R L C , a n d w e D IS M IS S th e re m a in d e r o f C R L C ’s c ro s s -a p p e a l.