No. 16-743 

In The Supreme Court of the United States _________ 

INDEPENDENCE INSTITUTE,

Appellant, 

v. 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION,

Appellee. 

_________ 

On Appeal from the United States District 

Court for the District of Columbia

_________ 

BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE JUDICIAL 

WATCH, INC. AND ALLIED EDUCATIONAL 

FOUNDATION IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANT 

_________ 

T. Russell Nobile Robert D. Popper 

WISE CARTER CHILD & Paul J. Orfanedes 

CARAWAY, P.A. Counsel of Record 

1105 30th Avenue JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. 

Gulfport, MS 39501 425 Third Street, SW 

(228) 385-9390 Washington, DC 20024 

trn@wisecarter.com (202) 646-5172 

 rpopper@judicialwatch.org 

Dated: January 4, 2017

LEGAL PRINTERS LLC, Washington DC ! 202-747-2400 ! legalprinters.com
i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...................................... ii 

INTERESTS OF THE AMICI CURIAE ..................... 1 

ARGUMENT ............................................................... 4 

I. Given the Potential Infringement of First 

Amendment Rights and Harm to an 

Informed Society, the Court has Required a 

Compelling Interest, Subject to Exacting 

Scrutiny, to Justify the Forced Disclosure 

of Donor Records. .............................................. 4 

II. Amici Have Firsthand Knowledge that a 

Fear of Public Disclosure of Donations and 

of Consequent Harassment Diminishes 

Individuals’ Willingness to Donate to or 

Join Conservative Organizations. ................... 7 

 

CONCLUSION .......................................................... 17 

 

 
ii 

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 

CASES 

Bates v. City of Little Rock, 

361 U.S. 516 (1960) ....................................... 5, 6, 7 

Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) ............................ 5 

Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940) ............ 5 

Citizens United v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 

558 U.S. 310 (2010) ......................................... 5, 10 

First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 

435 U.S. 765 (1978) ............................................... 4 

Gibson v. Fla. Legis. Investigation Comm., 

372 U.S. 539 (1963) ............................................... 4 

Indep. Inst. v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 

No. 14-CV-1500, 2016 WL 6560396 

(D.D.C. Nov. 3, 2016) ........................................ 1-2 

NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 (1958) .............. 5, 6 

Nat’l Ass’n for Advancement of Colored People v. 

 Button, 371 U.S. 415 (1963) ............................. 4, 5 

NorCal Tea Party Patriots, et al. v. I.R.S., et al., 

No. 1:13-CV-341 (S.D. Ohio May 24, 2016) ....... 13 

Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. v. Pub. Utilities Comm’n of 

 California, 475 U.S. 1 (1986) ............................... 4 
iii 

Talley v. State of California, 

362 U.S. 60 (1960) ................................................. 6 

Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88 (1940) ........... 4, 16 

True the Vote, Inc. v. Internal Revenue Serv., 

831 F.3d 551 (D.C. Cir. 2016) ............................. 12 

U.S. v. NorCal Tea Party Patriots (In re United 

 States), 817 F.3d 953 (6th Cir. 2016) ................. 12 

STATUTES 

52 U.S.C. § 30104 .................................................... 1, 2 

OTHER AUTHORITIES 

Alistair Barr, 

Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich Steps Down, WALL 

ST. J., April 3, 2014, https://goo.gl/6cevCo ......... 10

Don Edwards, 

WATERGATE HEARINGS, BOOK 31, “33. Book VIII, 

Vol. 1: Alleged Efforts by White House Officials 

to Acquire Information from the Internal 

Revenue Service and to Direct Certain IRS 

Activities” (1974), https://goo.gl/rnsjPk ............. 15 

FAQ on CEO Resignation, 

MOZILLA.ORG, https://goo.gl/MgyaDg ................... 9 

 
iv 

Judicial Watch, 

ABCs of IRS Mess; Justice Dept. Is Tainted Too

https://goo.gl/rtDGoS .......................................... 11 

Kimberley A. Strassel, 

Obama’s Enemies List—Part II, WALL ST. J., 

July 19, 2012, https://goo.gl/WtBiq3 .................. 10 

Patricia Sullivan, 

IRS Chief Successfully Fought Efforts To Use 

Tax Audits Against Nixon Foes, WASH. POST, 

Feb. 6, 2009, https://goo.gl/XYJxnd .................... 15 

The IRS Targeting Investigation: What is the 

Administration Doing? 

Hearing Before Subcomm. on Econ. Growth, Job 

Creation and Regulatory Affairs of the H. Comm 

on Oversight and Gov't Reform, 

 113th Cong. 2-3 (Feb. 6, 2014) ..................... 13, 14 

Thomas M. Messner, 

The Price of Prop 8, THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION, 

(Dec. 31, 2016), https://goo.gl/KV7Dbv ................ 9 

Tom Fitton, 

THE CORRUPTION CHRONICLES 18 (Simon & 

Schuster, 2014) ................................................... 14 

U.S. Treas. Insp. Gen. for Tax Admin., 

Ref. No. 2013-10-053, Inappropriate Criteria 

Were Used to Identify Tax-Exempt Applications 

for Review 30 (May 14, 2013) ...................... 11, 12
1 

INTERESTS OF THE AMICI CURIAE 1

 Judicial Watch, Inc. (“Judicial Watch”) is a 

nonpartisan, nonprofit § 501(c)(3) educational 

foundation that seeks to promote transparency, 

integrity, and accountability in government and 

fidelity to the rule of law. Judicial Watch regularly 

files amicus curiae briefs as a means to advance its 

public interest mission and has appeared as amicus 

curiae in this Court on a number of occasions. 

 

 The Allied Educational Foundation (“AEF”) is a 

501(c)(3) nonprofit charitable and educational 

foundation based in Englewood, New Jersey. 

Founded in 1964, AEF is dedicated to promoting 

education in diverse areas of study. AEF regularly 

files amicus curiae briefs as a means to advance its 

purpose and has appeared as an amicus curiae in 

this Court on a number of occasions. 

The three-judge panel in the U.S. District Court 

for the District of Columbia held that an issue 

advertisement triggered the disclosure requirements 

under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act 

(“BCRA”), 52 U.S.C. § 30104(f), on the ground that it 

named a State’s two sitting U.S. Senators and 

directed the audience to contact their offices to 

express their support for proposed legislation. Indep. 

 

1 Amici state that no counsel for a party to this case 

authored this brief in whole or in part; and no person or entity, 

other than Amici and their counsel, made a monetary 

contribution intended to fund the preparation and submission 

of this brief. All parties were asked and consented to the filing 

of this Amici Curiae brief. 
2 

Inst. v. Fed. Election Comm’n, No. 14-CV-1500, 2016 

WL 6560396 (D.D.C. Nov. 3, 2016). Because one of 

the named Senators was also a candidate for 

reelection, the panel determined that the issue 

advertisement constituted an electioneering 

communication as defined by 52 U.S.C. § 

30104(f)(3)(i). The Court reached this conclusion 

even though the advertisement made no reference to 

the Senator’s candidacy, did not advocate the 

election or defeat of the Senator (expressly or 

otherwise), and referenced the State’s other U.S. 

Senator, who was not then up for reelection. As a 

result of this decision, organizations that are not 

engaged in any express advocacy could be subject to 

the BCRA’s disclosure requirements. An 

organization would be required to report the names 

and addresses of all donors giving more than $1,000 

whenever the organization produced an issue 

advertisement simply naming an elected official 

during a covered time period. 

Amici submit that the district court’s decision 

raises important issues of constitutional law, and 

that it will have substantial adverse effects on 

nonprofit, 501(c)(3) organizations only concerned 

with policy issues, not the outcome of elections. The 

Court long has recognized that there is vital 

relationship between freedom to associate and 

privacy in one’s associations. Amici submit that 

organizations engaged in issue advocacy play a 

critical role in preserving and facilitating this vital 

relationship. If allowed to stand this decision will 

chill and deter speech. As set forth below, Amici

know firsthand that disclosure, or even the threat of 
3 

disclosure, may impair the ability of organizations – 

in particular, of conservative organizations – to 

conduct issue advocacy. Accordingly, Amici

respectfully submit that the Court should note 

probable jurisdiction and set the case for oral 

argument. 

 
4 

ARGUMENT 

I. Given the Potential Infringement of First 

Amendment Rights and Harm to an 

Informed Society, the Court Has Required 

a Compelling Interest, Subject to Exacting 

Scrutiny, to Justify the Forced Disclosure 

of Donor Records. 

 The rights of free speech and free association are 

fundamental and highly prized. Gibson v. Fla. Legis. 

Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 544 (1963), citing 

Nat’l Ass’n for Advancement of Colored People v. 

Button, 371 U.S. 415, 433 (1963). The Court has 

recognized, moreover, that the “constitutional 

guarantee of free speech ‘serves significant societal 

interests’ wholly apart from the speaker’s interest in 

self-expression.” Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. v. Pub. 

Utilities Comm’n of California, 475 U.S. 1, 8 (1986), 

citing First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 

U.S. 765, 776 (1978). “Freedom of discussion, if it 

would fulfill its historic function in this nation, must 

embrace all issues about which information is 

needed or appropriate to enable the members of 

society to cope with the exigencies of their period.” 

Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88, 102 (1940). “By 

protecting those who wish to enter the marketplace 

of ideas from government attack, the First 

Amendment protects the public’s interest in 

receiving information.” Pac. Gas & Elec. Co., 475 

U.S. at 8 (citations omitted). 

 Organizations play a critical role in this process 

by preserving the right to associate and by 

facilitating speech, popular or otherwise. “Effective 
5 

advocacy of both public and private points of view, 

particularly controversial ones, is undeniably 

enhanced by group association.” NAACP v. Alabama, 

357 U.S. 449, 460 (1958) (citations omitted). These 

groups facilitate “the speech of many individual 

Americans, who have associated in a common cause, 

giving the leadership of the [organization] the right 

to speak on their behalf.” Citizens United v. Fed. 

Election Comm'n, 558 U.S. 310, 392 (2010) (Scalia, 

J., dissenting). 

 “Because First Amendment freedoms need 

breathing space to survive, government may 

regulate in the area only with narrow specificity.”

Button, 371 U.S. at 433 (1963), citing Cantwell v. 

Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 311 (1940). In particular, 

to warrant public disclosure of an organization’s 

members, a government actor must “demonstrate[] 

so cogent an interest in obtaining and making public 

the membership lists of these organizations as to 

justify the substantial abridgment of associational 

freedom which such disclosures will effect.” Bates v. 

City of Little Rock, 361 U.S. 516, 524 (1960). Such a 

“significant encroachment upon personal liberty” 

may only be justified by “showing a subordinating 

interest which is compelling.” Id. (citations omitted). 

“Since NAACP v. Alabama we have required that the 

subordinating interests of the State must survive 

exacting scrutiny.” Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 64 

(1976). 

 In evaluating the burdens imposed by the forced 

disclosure of donor lists, the Bates Court noted the 

“harassment” and “fear of community hostility and 
6 

economic reprisals” that followed “public disclosure 

of the membership lists,” all of which “discouraged 

new members from joining the organizations and 

induced former members to withdraw.” 361 U.S. at 

524; see Talley v. State of California, 362 U.S. 60, 65 

(1960) (fear of reprisal “might deter perfectly 

peaceful discussions of public matters of 

importance”). Even where this “repressive effect” 

was “in part the result of private attitudes and 

pressures,” it was “brought to bear only after the 

exercise of governmental power had threatened to 

force disclosure of the members’ names.” Bates, 361 

U.S. at 524, citing NAACP, 357 U.S. at 463. 
7 

II. Amici Have Firsthand Knowledge that a 

Fear of Public Disclosure of Donations 

and of Consequent Harassment 

Diminishes Individuals’ Willingness to 

Donate to or Join Conservative 

Organizations. 

 Amici are both nonpartisan, nonprofit 501(c)(3) 

foundations, with a conservative orientation 

regarding public policy issues. Amici scrupulously 

avoid engaging in any type of electioneering 

communications or other election advocacy, but 

know well the fear of “harassment” and “community 

hostility and economic reprisals” that afflicts 

potential donors to conservative organizations 

regardless of whether those organizations are 

engaged in issue advocacy or electioneering. Bates, 

361 U.S. at 524. In consequence, amici are acutely 

aware of the chilling effect that expanding 

compelled, public disclosure of tax-exempt 

organizations’ donors may have on organizations’ 

activities. 

Amici’s firsthand experience indicates that donors 

may materially reduce their support if there is a 

greater risk of a government-ordered disclosure. To 

begin with, donors and potential donors to Amici

care about their privacy, as indicated by the fact that 

they routinely inquire as to whether their 

contributions will remain confidential. Further, both 

current and prospective donors routinely express 

concerns about possible retaliation for contributing 

to Amici. For example, contributors to Judicial 

Watch often tell its fundraisers that they “expect to 
8 

be audited” for contributing to the organization. 

Potential contributors have told the organization 

that they would like to contribute, but have chosen 

not to do so because of fear of retaliation. Other 

contributors choose to donate anonymously. And 

some contributors choose to forego available tax 

deductions for their contributions. 

 A substantial portion of Amici’s yearly income 

comes from donations in excess of $1,000. Any rule 

that potentially deterred such givers would threaten 

Amici with a significant loss of income. Moreover, 

charitable and 501(c)(3) foundations almost 

invariably receive most of their donations from a 

relatively small proportion of their total 

membership. While Judicial Watch receives a 

relatively wide range of contribution amounts each 

year, Amici know that most 501(c)(3) organizations 

rely on a few, large contributors. Any rule that 

deters larger givers will threaten the continued 

viability of such institutions. 

 

 The fear of negative consequences arising from 

public disclosure expressed by those contemplating 

donations to conservative organizations are founded 

on recent events. As has been widely reported, 

monetary support for conservative causes, when 

disclosed pursuant to campaign finance laws, can 

subject individuals and organizations to attack and 

retaliation. Such targeting has been carried out by 

governmental and non-governmental sources. 

 One particularly vivid example is the targeting of 

California citizens who supported Proposition 8 in 
9 

2008. Proposition 8, which defined marriage as 

between one man and one woman under California 

law, received a majority of votes in the November 

2008 election. At that time, the traditional view of 

marriage adopted by that law was also the publiclyexpressed view of President Obama, who also was on 

the ballot in 2008 and received a majority of 

California voters’ support. During the election 

campaign, however, opponents of Proposition 8 

developed an online database of the names, 

addresses (with maps), and places of employment of 

all individuals who had donated more than $100 in 

support of Proposition 8.2 The opponents obtained 

this information through the State’s campaign 

finance disclosure laws. During the campaign, 

supporters were subjected to various kinds of 

harassment, including intimidation, vandalism, and 

loss of income or employment. This harassment was 

the direct result of targeting facilitated by the 

State’s campaign disclosure laws. 

 The targeting of Proposition 8 supporters even 

continued years after the election. In April 2014, 

Mozilla Chief Executive Officer Brendan Eich 

resigned following boycotts, protests, and intense 

public scrutiny of Eich’s 2008 financial support for 

Proposition 8.3 When Mozilla announced that Eich 

would become the company’s new CEO in March 

2014 a firestorm erupted almost immediately over 

 

2 Thomas M. Messner The Price of Prop 8, THE HERITAGE 

FOUNDATION, (Dec. 31, 2016), https://goo.gl/KV7Dbv. 

3 FAQ on CEO Resignation, MOZILLA.ORG, 

https://goo.gl/MgyaDg (last visited on Dec. 31, 2016). 
10 

Eich’s six-year old $1,000 donation.4 Despite Eich’s 

attempts to address his critics’ concerns, he was was 

forced to resign two weeks later. The Mozilla affair 

illustrates that even where positions on 

controversial issues enjoy majority support, public 

disclosure of donations may affect an individual’s 

personal and professional interests. For Mozilla’s 

CEO, it led him to resign and leave from the 

company he co-founded sixteen years earlier. 

 A similar kind of story occurred during the 2012 

general election campaign. After Idaho businessman 

Frank VanderSloot contributed to a PAC supporting 

Mitt Romney, he and seven other private 

contributors were publicly identified by name and 

occupation. Within days, an investigator for an 

opposition research firm was researching Mr. 

VanderSloot’s divorce records. He subsequently was 

audited by the IRS for the first time in his career. 

And within days of being notified of the audit, Mr. 

VanderSloot was informed by the Department of 

Labor that it would be auditing his employees under 

a federal visa program for temporary agriculture 

workers.5

 More recently, shortly after the Court’s ruling in 

Citizens United v. Federal Election Com’n, 558 U.S. 

310 (2010), staff inside the Internal Revenue Service 

began targeting applications for tax-exempt status 

 

4 Alistair Barr, Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich Steps Down, 

WALL ST. J., April 3, 2014, https://goo.gl/6cevCo. 

5 Kimberley A. Strassel, Obama’s Enemies List—Part II, 

WALL ST. J., July 19, 2012, https://goo.gl/WtBiq3. 
11 

filed by conservative non-profit groups.6 What 

followed was one of the most troubling instances in 

recent memory of public officials using government 

resources to try to silence political opponents. 

 After widespread reports and Congressional 

inquiries regarding selective targeting of 

conservative organizations, the U.S. Treasury 

Inspector General for Tax Administration (“TIGTA”) 

audited the unit responsible for processing 

applications by organizations seeking tax-exempt 

status under I.R.C. §§ 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4). Id. at 

3. TIGTA’s report on the matter showed that there 

had been a deliberate, systematic targeting of 

conservative groups. U.S. Treas. Insp. Gen. for Tax 

Admin., Ref. No. 2013-10-053, Inappropriate Criteria 

Were Used to Identify Tax-Exempt Applications for 

Review 30 (May 14, 2013). The audit focused on 

allegations that the IRS targeted specific groups, 

delayed the processing of certain applications, and 

requested unnecessary information from certain 

applicants. Id. TIGTA found that the IRS unit 

responsible for processing tax-exempt applications 

used inappropriate criteria for selecting and 

referring applications for additional scrutiny by the 

IRS. Id. at 5. Initially, IRS staff conducted ad hoc 

application reviews looking for conservative terms 

such as “Tea Party,” “Patriots,” “9/12,” “We the 

People,” or “Take Back the Country.” Id. A few 

weeks later, the IRS systematized this process, 

developing a formal “Be On the Look Out” list of 

buzzwords staff should search for to identify 

 

6 Judicial Watch, ABCs of IRS Mess; Justice Dept. Is 

Tainted Too (last visited Dec. 29, 2016), https://goo.gl/rtDGoS.
12 

conservative organizations. Id. at 6. Applications 

containing these buzzwords were referred for further 

scrutiny. Id. Further, the IRS ordered additional 

scrutiny for applications based on political views 

such as concern with issues of government spending, 

government debt, taxes, or that were generally 

critical with how the country was being run. Id. at 6 

and 35. 

 As a result, conservative organizations seeking 

tax exempt status experienced delays in receiving 

final IRS determinations ranging from more than 

two years to over 1,000 days. Id. at 11, 14. These 

delays caused some applicants to withdraw their 

applications or abandon their constitutionally 

protected activities. Id. Many targeted applicants 

were subjected to highly-invasive requests for 

additional information. Id. at 18-20. TIGTA 

determined that several of the questions sent to 

targeted groups were unnecessary and may have 

caused donors to withhold donations or grants. Id.

18-20. Among its several invasive, irrelevant 

requests, the IRS sought the names of the 

applicant’s donors. Id. at 20. 

 TIGTA’s findings have been reported widely. 

However, the IRS has not shown the type of 

contrition one would expect from an Executive 

Agency found to be targeting citizens based on their 

political views. U.S. v. NorCal Tea Party Patriots (In 

re United States), 817 F.3d 953, 955 (6th Cir. 2016); 

True the Vote, Inc. v. Internal Revenue Serv., 831 

F.3d 551, 561 (D.C. Cir. 2016). Newly discovered 
13 

information shows that the IRS’s targeting was even 

more pervasive than TIGTA reported.7 

 The victims of this targeting have come forward to 

speak publicly about their ordeals. Catherine 

Engelbrecht testified about how the IRS, and 

possibly several other federal agencies, targeted her, 

her family, and their business after her organization 

filed an application for tax-exempt status. The IRS 

Targeting Investigation: What is the Administration 

Doing? Hearing Before Subcomm. on Econ. Growth, 

Job Creation and Regulatory Affairs of the H. Comm 

on Oversight and Gov't Reform, 113th Cong. 2-3 

(Feb. 6, 2014) (statement of Catherine Engelbrecht, 

Founder and President of True the Vote and King 

Street Patriots). Ms. Engelbrecht, a former client of 

Judicial Watch, testified that she and her family 

experienced 15 different instances of audit or inquiry 

into their affairs by various federal agencies.8 Id.

Previously, neither Ms. Engelbrecht nor her family 

business had ever experienced similar audits or 

inquiries by federal agencies. Leaders of other 

conservative organizations have testified about the 

 

7 See Notice of Compliance With Court's Order, Ex. 2 at 1-

10, NorCal Tea Party Patriots, et al. v. I.R.S., et al., No. 1:13-

CV-341 (S.D. Ohio May 24, 2016), ECF No. 265-2. 

8 These included IRS audits of her personal and business 

tax returns, unscheduled OSHA inspections, two 

comprehensive audits by the ATF in back to back years, and 

several calls by the FBI requesting it access to her 

organizations’ membership information to facilitate unspecified 

domestic terrorism investigations. Id.
14 

scrutiny they received after submitting applications 

for tax-exempt status.9 

 Amicus Judicial Watch has itself been the target 

of IRS scrutiny of its tax-exempt status by the 

Clinton administration in 1998.10 Documents 

obtained several years later through the Freedom of 

Information Act confirmed that the IRS targeted 

Judicial Watch within a week of receiving 

information from the White House. Id. During the 

audit, the IRS requested the names and addresses of 

Judicial Watch’s directors and its relationship with 

political parties and political groups. Id.

 Nor is such abusive political targeting by the 

Executive Branch restricted to one party. In 1973, 

the IRS Commissioner needed to intervene to 

prevent the Nixon administration from using IRS 

staff to target individuals hostile to the 

 

9 Becky Gerritson described how her organization received a 

request for additional information from the IRS in response to 

its application for tax-exempt status. The IRS Targeting 

Investigation: What is the Administration Doing? Hearing 

Before Subcomm. on Econ. Growth, Job Creation and 

Regulatory Affairs of the H. Comm on Oversight and Gov't 

Reform, 113th Cong. 2-3 (Feb. 6, 2014) (statement of Becky 

Gerritson, Founder and President, Wetumpka TEA Party, Inc). 

Among other things, the IRS requested detailed information 

about her organization’s donors. Id. 

10 Tom Fitton, THE CORRUPTION CHRONICLES 18 (Simon & 

Schuster, 2014). 
15 

Administration and the Vietnam War.11 Just as 

TIGTA reported in 2013, IRS staff in 1973 was using 

the “available federal machinery” to target political 

opposition to the government.12 

 Donors are often aware of instances of political 

targeting or harassment, as shown by the fact that 

they have raised the foregoing examples with Amici. 

In Amici’s experience, any rule that expands the 

definition of “electioneering communication” so as to 

require additional disclosure of donor data has the 

real potential to chill speech in non-electioneering 

contexts. The intimidating effect of the district 

court’s ruling is only enhanced by the fact that the 

rule it approves is so apparently arbitrary and 

unrelated to any true intention to favor one 

candidate over another. 

 Naturally, expanding the definition of 

“electioneering communication” for disclosure 

purposes does not affect only donors. It also 

influences Amici’s issue advocacy. Because the 

possibility of compelled disclosure, even if remote, 

affects the willingness of donors to give, Amici must 

accommodate their donors’ concerns. What this 

means, as a practical matter, is that Amici must be 

much more circumspect in mentioning the names of 

 

11 Patricia Sullivan, IRS Chief Successfully Fought Efforts To 

Use Tax Audits Against Nixon Foes, WASH. POST, Feb. 6, 2009, 

https://goo.gl/XYJxnd. 

12 Don Edwards, WATERGATE HEARINGS, BOOK 31, “33. Book 

VIII, Vol. 1: Alleged Efforts by White House Officials to Acquire 

Information from the Internal Revenue Service and to Direct 

Certain IRS Activities” (1974), https://goo.gl/rnsjPk. 
16 

both candidates for public office and elected public 

officials in their issue advocacy. This circumspection 

directly affects Amici’s current plans to educate the 

public on the issues about which Amici are 

concerned through broadcast and other media. 

 In short, the District Court’s ruling makes Amici

wary about how they fulfill their public interest 

missions. Other issue advocacy groups would be well 

advised to follow suit. The resultant public 

atmosphere is antithetical to true “[f]reedom of 

discussion,” which “must embrace all issues about 

which information is needed.” Thornhill, 310 U.S. at 

102. 

 
17 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Amici respectfully 

request that the Court note probable jurisdiction and 

set this matter for oral argument. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

T. Russell Nobile Robert D. Popper 

WISE CARTER CHILD & Paul J. Orfanedes 

Caraway, P.A. Counsel of Record 

1105 30th Avenue JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. 

Gulfport, MS 39501 425 Third Street, SW 

(228) 385-9390 Washington, DC 20024 

trn@wisecarter.com (202) 646-5172 

 rpopper@judicialwatch.org 

 

Counsel for Amici Curiae 

January 4, 2017