United States District Court

Eastern District of Virginia

Richmond Division

The Real Truth About Obama, Inc.

Plaintiff,

v.

Federal Election Commission and

United States Department of Justice,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:08-cv-00483-JRS

Brief in Support of

Preliminary Injunction and

Summary Judgment

Michael Boos (VA State Bar No. 37524)

Law Office of Michael Boos

4101 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 313

Fairfax, VA 22030

703/691-7717 telephone

703/691-7543 facsimile

michael.boos@gte.net

Local Counsel for Plaintiff

James Bopp, Jr.,* jboppjr@aol.com

Richard E. Coleson,* rcoleson@bopplaw.com

Barry A. Bostrom,* bbostrom@bopplaw.com

Kaylan Phillips,** kphillips@bopplaw.com

BOPP, COLESON & BOSTROM

1 South Sixth Street

Terre Haute, IN 47807-3510

812/232-2434 telephone

812/234-3685 facsimile

 *admitted pro hac vice

 **pro hac vice application pending

Lead Counsel for Plaintiff

Case 3:08-cv-00483-JRS Document 126 Filed 09/20/10 Page 1 of 51
Table of Contents

Table of Authorities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii

Procedural History & Nature of Case. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Material Facts as to Which There Is No Dispute. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Argument. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

I. Speech-Protective Preliminary-Injunction Standards Apply.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

A. WRTL-II and Citizens Reasserted Robust Protection for Issue Advocacy and

Groups.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

B. Winter Standards Require Speech-Protective Application.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

II. RTAO Has Likely Merits Success.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

A. 11 C.F.R. 100.22(b) Is Vague, Overbroad, Beyond Statutory Authority, and

Void... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

B. FEC’s PAC-Status Policy Is Vague, Overbroad, Beyond Authority, and Void.. . . 36

III. RTAO Meets the Other Preliminary-Injunction Elements.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

IV. RTAO Is Entitled to Summary Judgment... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

i

Case 3:08-cv-00483-JRS Document 126 Filed 09/20/10 Page 2 of 51
Table of Authorities

Cases

American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada v. Heller, 378 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 2004).. . . . . . . . . . 28

Anderson v. Spear, 356 F.3d 651 (6th Cir. 2004. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Ashcroft v. ACLU, 524 U.S. 656 (2004). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13, 14

Austin v. Michigan State Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652 (1990). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12, 36

Broward Coalition of Condominiums., Homeowners Associations and Community Organizations., Inc. v. Browning, No. 4:08cv445, 2009 WL 1457972 (N.D. Fla. May 22, 2009) 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25, 28

Brownsburg Area Patrons Affecting Change v. Baldwin, 137 F.3d 503 (7th Cir. 1998). . . . . . . 28

Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, 17, 20, 22-26, 28, 29, 34, 36, 41

Byrum v. Landreth, 566 F.3d 442 (5th Cir. 2009). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

California Pro-Life Council v. Getman, 328 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. 2003). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Center for Individual Freedom v. Carmouche, 449 F.3d 655 (5th Cir. 2006).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Center for Individual Freedom, Inc. v. Ireland, 613 F. Supp. 2d 777 (S.D. W. Va. 2009).. 14, 16,

25, 27, 36, 42, 43

Chamber of Commerce of the U.S. v. Moore, 288 F.3d 187 (5th Cir. 2002).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches v. England, 454 F.3d 290 (D.C. Cir. 2006). . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S. Ct. 876 (2010). . . 1-3, 5, 11, 12, 17, 18, 21-23, 26, 32, 35, 36, 40,

43

Colorado Right to Life Committee v. Coffman, 498 F.3d 1137 (10th Cir. 2007). . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (1976). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15, 41

EMILY’s List v. FEC, 581 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2009). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2, 3, 21

Faucher v. FEC, 928 F.2d 468 (1st Cir. 1991). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

FEC v. Central Long Island Tax Reform, 616 F.2d 45 (2d Cir.1980).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

ii

Case 3:08-cv-00483-JRS Document 126 Filed 09/20/10 Page 3 of 51
FEC v. Christian Action Network, 110 F.3d 1049 (4th Cir. 1997). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27, 31

FEC v. Furgatch, 807 F.2d 857 (9th Cir. 1987). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28, 30, 31

FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, 479 U.S. 238 (1986). . . . . . . . . . . . 24, 27, 28, 36-39, 41

FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, 551 U.S. 449 (2007). . . . 3, 10-12, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25, 27, 29,

30, 33, 34, 33-35, 38

Foster v. Dilger, No. 3:10-cb-00041-DCR (E.D. Ky. Sept. 9, 2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

G & V Lounge v. Mich. Liquor Control Comm’n, 23 F.3d 1071 (6th Cir. 1999). . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Giovani Carandola, Ltd. v. Bason, 303 F.3d 507 (4th Cir. 2001). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (2006). . . 14, 18, 26,

36

Gov. Gray Davis Comm. v. American Taxpayers Alliance, 102 Cal. App. 4th 449 (Cal. Ct.

App. 2002). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Iowa Right to Life Committee v. Williams, 187 F.3d 963 (8th Cir. 1999). . . . . . . . . . . . . 14, 27, 28

Jerome B. Grubart, Inc. v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., 513 U.S. 527 (1995).. . . . . . . . . . 17

Jones v. Caruso, 569 F.3d 258 (6th Cir. 2010). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

League of Women Voters of Colo. v. Davidson, 23 P.3d 1266 (Colo. App. 2001). . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Maine Right to Life v. FEC, 98 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1996). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188 (1977). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Martin-Marietta Corp. v. Bendix Corp., 690 F.2d 558 (6th Cir. 1982).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968 (1997).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13, 14

McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93 (2003).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11, 12, 26-29, 33

Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith v. Grall, 836 F. Supp. 428 (W.D. Mich. 1993).. . . . . . . 16

National Right to Work Legal Defense and Education Foundation v. Herbert, 581 F. Supp.

2d 1132 (D. Utah 2008). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25, 28

New Mexico Youth Organized v. Herrera, 611 F.3d 669 (10th Cir. 2010). . . . . . . . . . . . 25, 28, 38

iii

Case 3:08-cv-00483-JRS Document 126 Filed 09/20/10 Page 4 of 51
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Newsom ex rel. Newsom v. Albermarle County School Board, 354 F.3d 249 (4th Cir. 2003). . . 15

Newson v. Norris, 888 F.2d 371 (6th Cir. 1989). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

North Carolina Right to Life v. Leake, 525 F.3d 274 (4th Cir. 2008). . . 19, 22-25, 27, 28, 36, 37,

41

Ohio Right to Life, No. 2:08-cv-492, slip op. (S.D. Oh. Sep. 5, 2008). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42, 43

Osterberg v. Peca, 12 S.W. 3d 31 (Tex. 2000). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Phelps-Roper v. Nixon, 545 F.3d 685 (8th Cir. 2008). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Real Truth About Obama, Inc. v. FEC, 130 S. Ct. 2371 (2010). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-3, 10, 11, 32

Real Truth About Obama, Inc. v. FEC, 2008 WL 4416282 (E.D. Va. Sept. 24, 2008).. . . . . . . . . 1

Real Truth About Obama, Inc. v. FEC, 575 F.3d 342 (4th Cir. 2009). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Right to Life of Duchess County, lnc. v. FEC, 6 F. Supp.2d 248 (S.D.N.Y. 1998). . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Ross-Whitney Corp. v. Smith Kline & French Laboratories, 207 F.2d 190 (9th Cir. 1953). . . . . 16

Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622 (1994). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

University of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390 (1981). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Virginia Society for Human Life v. FEC, 263 F.3d 379 (4th Cir. 2001). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22, 27

Virginia v. American Bookseller’s Ass’n, 484 U.S. 383 (1988). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Virginia v. Hicks, 539 U.S. 113 (2003). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Washington State Republican Party v. Washington State Public Disclosure Comm’n, 4 P.3d

808 (Wash. 2000). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

West Virginia Association of Club Owners & Fraternal Services, Inc. v. Musgrave, 553 F.3d

292 (4th Cir. 2009). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 129 S. Ct. 365 (2008). . . . . . . . . . 1, 12, 13, 15, 19

iv

Case 3:08-cv-00483-JRS Document 126 Filed 09/20/10 Page 5 of 51
Constitutions, Statutes & Regulations

11 C.F.R. 100.5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

11 C.F.R. 100.57. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2, 3, 5, 8, 12, 21, 36

11 C.F.R. 114.15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2, 3, 12, 21, 32, 33, 35, 41

2 U.S.C. 431.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3, 4

2 U.S.C. 431(17). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

2 U.S.C. 431(4). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

2 U.S.C. 434(c). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

2 U.S.C. 434(f)(3). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

2 U.S.C. 441d.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5, 22

5 U.S.C. 706.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22, 25, 40

U.S. Const. amend. I. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . passim

U.S. Const. art. VI. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Other Authorities

Black’s Law Dictionary (5th ed. 1979). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

FEC Advisory Opinion 2005-13 (Emily’s List).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

FEC, “Express Advocacy . . . ,” 60 Fed. Reg. 35291 (July 6, 1995). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

FEC, “Political Committee Status . . . ,” 69 Fed. Reg. 68056 (Nov. 23, 2004).. . . . . . . . . . . . 8, 36

FEC, “Political Committee Status,” 72 Fed. Reg. 5595 (Feb. 7, 2007).. . . . . . . . . . 5, 8, 36, 39, 40

James Bopp, Jr. & Richard E. Coleson, Comments of the James Madison Center for Free

Speech on Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 2007-16 (Electioneering Communications)

(Sept. 28, 2007).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure

(2d ed. 1995).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

v

Case 3:08-cv-00483-JRS Document 126 Filed 09/20/10 Page 6 of 51
Procedural History & Nature of Case

The posture here is unique. This is a remand of the appeal of an order (Doc. 65) denying two

motions (Doc. 3, 53) for preliminary injunction in Real Truth About Obama, Inc. v. FEC, 2008

WL 4416282 (E.D. Va. Sept. 24, 2008) (“RTAO”), aff’d, 575 F.3d 342 (4th Cir. 2009), vacated

and remanded, 130 S. Ct. 2371 (2010).1

There are two issues relating to the preliminary-injunction remand because the Supreme

Court’s vacation and remand responded to two distinct certiorari petition issues: (1) “[w]hether

the First Amendment requires speech-protective preliminary-injunction standards for issue advocacy” and (2) “[w]hether RTAO had likely success on the merits (and so met the other

preliminary-injunction standards) . . . .” Cert. Pet. at i, RTAO, 130 S. Ct. 2371 (No. 09-724)

(available at www.jamesmadisoncenter.org). The Fourth Circuit reissued its holding that the

preliminary-injunction standards of Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 129 S. Ct. 365

(2008), replace contrary Fourth Circuit standards, but it neither addressed speech-protective standards in the free-speech context nor their application, leaving both to this Court in light of the

Supreme Court’s strong political speech protection in Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S. Ct. 876

(“Citizens”). Thus, as RTAO files its Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Summary Judgment

herewith, it respectfully asserts that this Court should expressly recognize the special protections

for free speech in the preliminary-injunction context and apply them to grant RTAO’s preliminary injunction motion.

 The Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated judgment, and “remanded . . . for . . . con- 1

sideration in light of Citizens United v. [FEC, 130 S.Ct. 876 (2010)] . . . and the Solicitor General’s suggestion of mootness.” 130 S. Ct. 2371. The Fourth Circuit “reissue[d] Parts I and II of

its earlier opinion . . . , stating the facts and articulating the standard for . . . preliminary injunctions” and, “[o]n the remaining issues, . . . remand[ed] . . . for consideration of . . . Citizens

United and the . . . new suggestion of mootness.” 607 F.3d 355 (4th Cir. 2010) (per curiam).

1

Case 3:08-cv-00483-JRS Document 126 Filed 09/20/10 Page 7 of 51
RTAO also moves for summary judgment, but it does so to accommodate opposing counsel,

expedite case resolution, and conserve resources for Court and parties. Because the questions are

legal and there are no genuine disputes as to material facts, the Court should resolve the merits of

the case on summary judgment. But the preliminary injunction motion should not be postponed

and denied as moot after summary judgment is decided. That would ignore the nature of the remand, which is to reconsider and apply the preliminary-injunction standards applicable in the

free-speech context.

RTAO’s alternative would be to move only for preliminary injunction, resist the government’s summary judgment motion, and then later move for summary judgment. FEC counsel has

discouraged this bifurcated approach in conversations with RTAO’s counsel, and RTAO is being

responsive in taking the present approach. But RTAO believes that it should not be penalized for

being accommodating by not receiving a full explication of the speech-protective preliminaryinjunction standards and their application. So RTAO respectfully prays first for a grant of preliminary injunction with an opinion recognizing the free-speech context, in keeping with the remand,

followed by a grant of summary judgment for RTAO. RTAO has also moved for consolidation of

the hearings for preliminary injunction with the hearing on the merits, i.e., the summary judgment hearing, which should be granted for reasons of expedition and conservation.

The Supreme Court’s reference in its remand order to “the Solicitor General’s suggestion of

mootness,” 130 S. Ct. 2371, referred specifically to two comments, The first was that

Petitioner’s remaining challenges, to 11 C.F.R. 100.57 and 114.15, are moot. In light of

the decisions in Citizens United and EMILY’s List[v. FEC, 581 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2009)],

the Commission has announced that it will no longer enforce those regulations.

Br. Resp’ts at 24, RTAO, 130 S. Ct. 2371. The second was in the Conclusion:

With respect to petitioner’s challenges to 11 C.F.R. 100.57 and 114.15, the petition for a

2

Case 3:08-cv-00483-JRS Document 126 Filed 09/20/10 Page 8 of 51
writ of certiorari should be granted, the judgment of the court of appeal should be vacated,

and the case should be remanded with instructions to dismiss those claims as moot.

Id. at 25. RTAO responded in its Reply to Brief in Opposition:

FEC will not enforce 11 C.F.R. 100.57 and 114.15. (Opp’n 5-7.) The former is unconstitutional and beyond statutory authority. EMILY’s List v. FEC, 581 F.3d 1, 17-18, 21-22 (D.C.

Cir. 2009). The latter was “preciselywhat WRTL[-II ] sought to avoid,” Citizens, 130 S. Ct. 2

at 895-96, and lacks function after Citizens held corporate speech prohibitions unconstitutional. Claims regarding these are moot and should be handled as FEC suggests. (Opp’n

25.)

Reply Br. at 1 n.1, RTAO, 130 S. Ct. 2371 (emphasis added). Consequently, the challenges to

those regulations, Counts 2 and 4, are not pursed here. But Counts 1 and 3 are not moot or the

Supreme Court would not have granted certiorari and remanded for their reconsideration as to

preliminary-injunction standards in the free-expression context and their application.3

Material Facts as to Which There Is No Dispute

4

1. Plaintiff RTAO is a nonstock, nonprofit, Virginia corporation whose principal place of

business was Richmond, Virginia (Am. V. Compl. ¶ 5), but now is Fredericksburg, Virginia. See

https://cisiweb.scc.virginia.gov/z_container.aspx (searchable).

2. Defendant FEC is the federal government agency with enforcement authority over the

Federal Election Campaign Act (“FECA”) (2 U.S.C. 431 et seq.). Its headquarters are located in

FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, 551 U.S. 449 (2007) (controlling opinion by Roberts, 2

C.J., joined by Alito, J.). The controlling opinion (“WRTL-II”) states the holding. Marks v.

United States, 430 U.S. 188, 193 (1977).

 RTAO expressly addressed mootness, including the statement that “RTAO would like to 3

do materially similar future activities, so the need for a preliminary injunction is capable of repetition yet evading review.” Cert. Pet. at 6, RTAO, 130 S. Ct. 2371.

 As this case is on remand for reconsideration of the preliminary-injunction ruling, the facts 4

are provided here generally as originally set out in the amended verified complaint (Doc. 86) and

the Allen affidavit (Doc. 53-2) with the original tense preserved. Some facts have been deleted as

to 11 C.F.R. 100.57 and 114.15 and because Citizens struck the corporate prohibition on independent expenditures and electioneering communications. While some facts contain time-bound

information, RTAO has verified its intent to do materially-similar future activity.

3

Case 3:08-cv-00483-JRS Document 126 Filed 09/20/10 Page 9 of 51
Washington, D.C. FEC promulgated the regulation and adopted the enforcement policy at issue

in this case. (Am. V. Compl. ¶ 6.)

3. Defendant DOJ is an executive department of the United States government, with the Attorney General as its head. It’s headquarters are in Washington, D.C. It has control over all criminal prosecutions and civil suits in which the United States has an interest, including criminal enforcement authority over the applicable federal laws at issue in this case. (Am. V. Compl. ¶ 7.)

4. RTAO was incorporated in July 2008. (Am. V. Compl. ¶ 8.) It is nonprofit under 26

U.S.C. 527, which means that it is classified under the Internal Revenue Code as a “political organization” that may receive donations and make disbursements for certain identified political purposes without having to pay corporate income taxes. (Am. V. Compl. ¶ 9.)

5. It is not properly a “political committee” (“PAC”) under FECA because none of its communications should qualify as either a “contribution” or “expenditure,” aggregating more than

$1,000 during a calendar year, which is a trigger requirement for PAC status under 2 U.S.C. 431.

See also 11 C.F.R. 100.5 (PAC definition). (Am. V. Compl. ¶ 10.)

6. It is also not properly a PAC because, even if it were to reach the $1,000 contribution or

expenditure threshold to trigger statutory PAC status under FECA, RTAO does not meet the constitutionally required “major purpose” test. See Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 79 (1976) (limiting

imposed PAC burdens to “organizations that are under the control of a candidate or the major

purpose of which is the nomination or election of a candidate” because “[t]hey are, by definition,

campaign related” (emphasis added)). (Am. V. Compl. ¶ 11.)

7. As set out in its Articles of Incorporation, RTAO’s purposes are as follows:

The specific and primary purposes for which this corporation is formed and for which it

shall be exclusively administered and operated are to receive, administer and expend funds

in connection with the following:

4

Case 3:08-cv-00483-JRS Document 126 Filed 09/20/10 Page 10 of 51
1. To provide accurate and truthful information about the public policy positions of

Senator Barack Obama;

2. To engage in non-partisan voter education, registration and get out the voter

activities in conjunction with federal elections;

3. To engage in any activities related to federal elections that are authorized by and

are consistent with Section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code except that the corporation

shall not:

(a) expressly advocate the election or defeat of any clearly identified candidate for

public office, or

(b) make any contribution to any candidate for public office; and

4. To engage in any and all lawful activities incidental to the foregoing purposes

except as restricted herein. (Am. V. Compl. ¶ 12.)

8. However, RTAO has a reasonable belief that it will be deemed a PAC by FEC and DOJ

because of (a) FEC’s use of the challenged provision at 11 C.F.R. 100.22(b) (along with the sort

of approach taken by 11 C.F.R. 100.57, which is no longer enforced but is the type of consideration employed by FEC PAC-status policy) and FEC’s enforcement policy concerning PAC status, see FEC, “Political Committee Status,” 72 Fed. Reg. 5595 (Feb. 7, 2007) (“PAC-Status 2”)

(emphasizing the need for “flexibility” in determining PAC status based on a wide range of factors in a case-by-case analysis of “major purpose”), to deem several 527 organizations to be

PACs and in violation of FECA, see id. at 5605 (listing Matters Under Review (“MURs”) in

which this occurred); and (b) the similar nature of RTAO and its planned activities to some of

those in the MURs cited in PAC-Status 2. (Am. V. Compl. ¶ 13.)5

9. One of the ways that RTAO intends to provide accurate and truthful information about the

public policy positions of Senator Obama is by creating a website at www.therealtruthaboutobama.com, where accurate statements about his public policy positions will be stated and docu-

 Paragraph 14 of the complaint set out the corporate prohibition on independent expendi- 5

tures at 2 U.S.C. 441b, which was struck in Citizens, and is no longer relevant as to a prohibition.

But the “expressly advocating” definition at 11 C.F.R. 100.22(b) remains relevant because independent expenditures over a thousand dollars trigger statutory PAC status, 2 U.S.C. 431(4), and

require prescribed disclaimers, 2 U.S.C. 441d.

5

Case 3:08-cv-00483-JRS Document 126 Filed 09/20/10 Page 11 of 51
mented. See Complaint Exhibit A. (Am. V. Compl. ¶ 15.)

10. RTAO intends to produce an audio ad entitled “Change” and place it on its website,

which states the following:

(Woman’s voice)Just what is the real truth about Democrat Barack Obama’s position

on abortion?

(Obama-like voice) Change. Here is how I would like to change America . . . about

abortion:

• Make taxpayers pay for all 1.2 million abortions performed in America each year

• Make sure that minor girls’ abortions are kept secret from their parents

• Make partial-birth abortion legal

• Give Planned Parenthood lots more money to support abortion

• Change current federal and state laws so that babies who survive abortions will

die soon after they are born

• Appoint more liberal Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court.

One thing I would not change about America is abortion on demand, for any reason, at any

time during pregnancy, as many times as a woman wants one.

(Woman’s voice). Now you know the real truth about Obama’s position on abortion.

Is this the change that you can believe in?

To learn more real truth about Obama, visit www.The RealTruthAboutObama.com.

Paid for by The Real Truth About Obama. (Am. V. Compl. ¶ 16.)

11. RTAO intends to produce another audio ad entitled “Survivors” and place it on its

website, which states the following:

NURSE: The abortion was supposed to kill him, but he was born alive. I couldn’t bear to

follow hospital policy and leave him on a cold counter to die, so I held and rocked him for

45 minutes until he took his last breath.

MALE VOICE: As an Illinois Democratic State Senator, Barack Obama voted three times

to deny lifesaving medical treatment to living, breathing babies who survive abortions. For

four years, Obama has tried to cover-up his horrendous votes by saying the bills didn’t have

clarifying language he favored. Obama has been lying. Illinois documents from the very

committee Obama chaired show he voted against a bill that did contain the clarifying

language he says he favors.

Obama’s callousness in denying lifesaving treatment to tiny babies who survive abortions

reveals a lack of character and compassion that should give everyone pause.

Paid for by The Real Truth About Obama, Inc. (Am. V. Compl. ¶ 17; Allen Aff. ¶¶ 3, 5.)

12. RTAO also intends to broadcast Change and Survivors (collectively “Ads”) as radio advertisements on the Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity radio programs in heartland states during

6

Case 3:08-cv-00483-JRS Document 126 Filed 09/20/10 Page 12 of 51
“electioneering communication” blackout periods thirty days before the Democratic National

Convention (July 29-Aug. 28, 2008) and sixty days before the general election (Sept. 5-Nov. 4,

2008), so the Ads will meet the electioneering communication definition at 2 U.S.C. 434(f)(3).

(Am. V. Compl. ¶ 18; Allen Aff. ¶ 4.)

13. RTAO also intends to create on its website digital postcards setting out Senator Obama’s

public policy positions on abortion, and viewers will be able to send these postcards to friends

from within the website. One of the planned postcards will be similar to the Change ad, except it

will be done in first person and “signed” by “Barack Obamabortion.” The postcards will be designed to be the sort of catchy, edgy, entertaining items that are popular for circulation on the

Internet. See Complaint Exhibit A. (Am. V. Compl. ¶ 19.)

14. In order to raise money for funding its website and content, the production of the Ads,

the employment of persons knowledgeable about Internet viral marketing, and the broadcasting

of the Ads, RTAO will need to raise funds by telling potential donors about itself and its projects.

One of the ways that RTAO intends to raise funds is by use of the following communication:

Dear x,

I need your help. We’re launching a new project to let the public know the real truth

about the public policy positions of Senator Barack Obama.

Most people are unaware of his radical pro-abortion views. For example, when he was

a state senator in Illinois, he voted against a state bill like the federal Born Alive Infant

Protection Act. That bill merely required that, if an abortionist was trying to abort a baby

and the baby was born alive, then the abortionist would have to treat that baby as any other

newborn would be treated. Under this law, the baby would be bundled off to the newborn

nursery for care, instead of being left on a cold table in a back room until dead. It seems like

everyone would support such a law, but, as an Illinois State Senator, Obama did not. There

are lots of other examples of his radical support for abortion, and we need to get the word

out. That’s where you come in.

A new organization has just been formed to spearhead this important public-information effort. It’s called The Real Truth About Obama. We plan to do some advertising. Since

we’re not a PAC, there won’t be any “vote for” or “vote against” type of ads—just the truth,

compellingly told.

A central planned project is directed at the world of the Internet. We’ve already re7

Case 3:08-cv-00483-JRS Document 126 Filed 09/20/10 Page 13 of 51
served www.TheRealTruthAboutObama.com to set up a website. Here’s the exciting part.

The website will feature a weekly postcard “signed” by“Barack Obamabortion.” Like that?

While you are visiting the website, you can send the postcard by email to anyone you

designate. What could be easier?! And the postcards will be done in a catchy, memorable

manner—the sort of thing that zips around the Internet. Each postcard will feature welldocumented facts about Obama’s views on abortion.

The postcards will also send people to the website for more real truth about Obama,

but we also plan to do a radio ad to do that, too. This radio ad will give the real truth about

Obama’s abortion position—all properly documented, of course. Notice the “Truth” part

of our name.

Of course it takes money to develop, host, and maintain a hot-topic website, and to hire

the people who specialize in getting things noticed on the Internet (it’s called viral marketing). So we need your help. We need for you to send us money. As much as you can donate.

Right away. We need to get the word out. We know how. We’re ready to roll. Now we need

you.

Your friend for truth,

x

P.S.—Please send your check today. Time is of the essence. Please send the largest gift you

can invest in this vital project. Together we can get the word out. (Am. V. Compl. ¶ 20.)

15. RTAO intends to raise more than $1,000 with this fundraising communication and to

disburse more than $1,000 both to broadcast the Ads and to place them before the public on

RTAO’s website. (Am. V. Compl. ¶ 21.)

16. However, RTAO is chilled from proceeding with these activities because it reasonably

believes that it will be subject to an FEC and DOJ investigation and a possible enforcement action potentially resulting in civil and criminal penalties, based on the fact that FEC has deemed

527s to be PACs, based on (a) a rule defining “express advocacy” in a vague and overbroad manner, 11 C.F.R. 100.22(b) (broad, contextual express-advocacy test), that may make the Ads “independent expenditures” and (b) a vague and overbroad approach to determining whether an organization meets Buckley’s major-purpose test for imposing PAC status. See FEC, “Political

Committee Status . . . ,” 69 Fed. Reg. 68056 (Nov. 23, 2004) (“PAC-Status 1”); PAC-Status 2, 72

Fed. Reg. 5595. (Am. V. Compl. ¶ 22; Allen Aff. ¶ 6.) 6

 Some FEC 527 enforcement was based on now-unenforced 11 C.F.R. 100.57. 6

8

Case 3:08-cv-00483-JRS Document 126 Filed 09/20/10 Page 14 of 51
17. RTAO is also chilled from proceeding because, if Defendants subsequently deem RTAO

to have been a PAC while doing its intended activities, then RTAO would have been required to

use “federal funds” (funds raised subject to federal source and amount restrictions) to send out

the fundraising communication, see FEC Advisory Opinion 2005-13 at 1 (Emily’s List), and

RTAO would be in violation for not having used federal funds for the fundraising communication. (Am. V. Compl. ¶ 23.)

18. RTAO’s chill is heightened by the DOJ’s declaration that investigations and criminal

prosecutions of “knowing and willful” violations of these FECA provisions by 527 corporations

was a priority, see Letter from John C. Keeney, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, to Fred

Wertheimer, President, Democracy 21 (June 26, 2008), Complaint Exhibit B, which was in response to a Democracy 21 letter to the Attorney General encouraging such enforcement in light

of the FEC’s own enforcement actions against 527 groups based on these same challenged provisions. See Letter from Fred Wertheimer, President, Democracy 21, to Michael Mukasey, Attorney General (May 22, 2008). Complaint Exhibit C. (Am. V. Compl. ¶ 24.)

19. Consequently, RTAO reasonably fears, if it proceeds with its intended activities: (a) that

the Ads (both on RTAO’s website and as broadcast) will be deemed express advocacy under 11

C.F.R. 100.22(b) and, if RTAO is not deemed a PAC, it will be in violation of FECA failing to

place disclaimers on them and failing to file an independent expenditure report; (b) that, if

RTAO is deemed to be a PAC under FEC’s enforcement policy on “political committees” and

because publication of the Ads will be considered an “expenditure” (under 100.22(b)), RTAO

will be in violation of FECA for failure to abide by numerous PAC requirements, including placing disclaimers on the Ads and RTAO’s website, failure to register and report as a PAC, failure

to use federal funds for fundraising, failure to abide by limits on contributions to PACs, and fail9

Case 3:08-cv-00483-JRS Document 126 Filed 09/20/10 Page 15 of 51
ure to abide by the source limitations imposed on PACs; and (c) in any event, that RTAO will

suffer an intrusive and burdensome investigation and, possibly, an enforcement action, potentially leading to civil and criminal penalties. So RTAO will not proceed with its intended activities unless it receives the judicial relief requested herein. (Am. V. Compl. ¶ 25; Allen Aff. ¶ 6.)

20. In addition to the activities set out herein, RTAO intends to participate in materially similar activities in the future, including broadcasting ads materially similar to Change and Survivors. (Am. V. Compl. ¶ 27; Allen Aff. ¶ 7.) RTAO’s chill is irreparable harm because it is the

loss of First Amendment rights, and there is no adequate remedy at law. (Am. V. Compl. ¶ 28.)

Argument

I. Speech-Protective Preliminary-Injunction Standards Apply.

Articulating and applying speech-protective preliminary-injunction standards is essential to

this remand. Recognition of such standards for future preliminary injunctions is central to

RTAO’s challenge, as was set before the Supreme Court:

Preliminary-injunction denials deprive issue-advocacy groups of timely opportunities to

advocate their issues. RTAO wanted to talk about a politician’s public-policy position

during hot public debate on a subject when public attention was focused so as to make the

communication uniquely effective. While this case is not moot because it is capable of

repetition yet evading review, see WRTL-II, 551 U.S. at 461-64, the particular public

teachable moment was lost. Where issue-advocacy involves time-sensitive issues, preliminary-injunction denials effectively decide the case. For example, in WRTL-II, WRTL was

denied a preliminary injunction, which deprived it of the timely opportunity to advocate

against judicial-nominee filibusters, 551 U.S. at 460. The 2007 vindication of WRTL’s

right to run its 2004 ads did not repair the deprivation when most timely. Recognizing this

problem, WRTL-IIset speech-protective standards for future as-applied challengesto assure

expeditious decisions. See id. at 467-69. These and other speech-protective standards 7

should be incorporated into the preliminary-injunction standard.

Cert. Pet. at 11-12, RTAO, 130 S. Ct. 2371. RTAO asserted that “standards should be articulated

 The dissent agreed that preliminary injunctions are available, 551 U.S. at 353, meaning that

7

the standard must be capable of being met.

10

Case 3:08-cv-00483-JRS Document 126 Filed 09/20/10 Page 16 of 51
so issue-advocacy groups may advocate when public interest is high, as the First Amendment requires.” Id. at 14.

A. WRTL-II and Citizens Reasserted Robust Protection for Issue Advocacy and Groups.

The preliminary-injunction appeal here was “remanded . . . for . . . consideration in light of

Citizens.” RTAO, 130 S. Ct. 2371. To the extent that McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93 (2003),

might have been deemed a diminution of Supreme Court protection for issue advocacy and issueadvocacy groups, that part of McConnell is dead because Citizens expressly overruled it, 130 S.

Ct. at 914 (overruling McConnell, 540 U.S. at 203-09). And WRTL-II, 551 U.S. 449, and Citizens forcefully reasserted robust protection for political speech, including the necessity of brightline, speech-protective tests—which has special urgency in the preliminary-injunction context.

WRTL-II held that “because [the challenged “electioneering communication” ban] burdens 8

political speech, it is subject to strict scrutiny. . . . Under strict scrutiny, the Government must

prove that applying [it] to [plaintiff]’s ads furthers a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored

to achieve that interest.” 551 U.S. at 464-65 (emphasis in original; citations omitted). WRTL-II

expressly rejected any considerations of intent and effect, id. at 465-69, 472, context (other than

basic background information), id. at 472-74, or proximity to an election, id. at 472-73, for determining whether a communication is protected issue advocacy (i.e., “political speech,” id. at 481)

or regulable electioneering (i.e., “campaign speech,” id.). It defined issue advocacy as informing

the public without appealing for a vote: “Issue advocacy conveys information and educates. An

issue ad’s impact on an election, if it exists at all, will come only after the voters hear the information and choose— uninvited by the ad—to factor it into their voting decisions.” Id. at 470.

 Electioneering communications are essentially non-express-advocacy, targeted communica- 8

tions mentioning candidates in 30- and 60-day periods before primary and general elections. See

2 U.S.C. 434(f)(3). McConnell facially upheld the ban. 540 U.S. at 207.

11

Case 3:08-cv-00483-JRS Document 126 Filed 09/20/10 Page 17 of 51
WRTL-II limited the reach of the ban on corporate electioneering communications to those containing an “appeal to vote” and mandated speech-protective standards for issue-advocacy cases.

WRTL-II, 551 U.S. at 469-70, 467-69. See infra (speech-protective standards discussed).

Citizens went even further than protecting issue advocacy, it overruled the foundation for

banning corporate express advocacy and electioneering communications in McConnell, 540 U.S.

at 914, and Austin v. Michigan State Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652 (1990). The Citizens

Court was motivated in large part by FEC’s refusal to protect issue advocacy under WRTL-II’s

appeal-to-vote test in its regulation at 11 C.F.R. 114.15, 130 S. Ct. at 896 (“This is precisely what

WRTL sought to avoid.”), which failure RTAO explained here in arguing likely success on the

merits in its first preliminary-injunction brief. (Doc. 4 at 20-26.) Citizens emphasized “the primary importance of speech itself to the integrity of the election process” and that “[a]s additional

rules are created for regulating political speech, any speech arguably within their reach is

chilled.” 130 S. Ct. at 895. It then declared that FEC had turned the Court’s “objective ‘appeal to

vote’ test” into “a two-part, 11-factor balancing test” that “function[ed] as the equivalent of a

prior restraint by giving the FEC power analogous to licensing laws implemented in 16th- and

17th-century England, laws and governmental practices of the sort that the First Amendment was

drawn to prohibit.” Id. at 895-96. That repudiated vague and overbroad approach is precisely

what FEC used in enacting 11 C.F.R. 100.22(b) and FEC’s PAC-status enforcement policy (as

well as in promulgating 11 C.F.R. §§ 100.57 and 114.15, which FEC has abandoned).

B. Winter Standards Require Speech-Protective Application.

Because this is a preliminary-injunction remand, the Supreme Court’s preliminary-injunction

standards apply: “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to

succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary

12

Case 3:08-cv-00483-JRS Document 126 Filed 09/20/10 Page 18 of 51
relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter, 129 S. Ct. at 374 (emphasis added). In “characteriz[ing] . . . injunctive relief as an

extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled

to such relief,” id. at 375-76, Winter cited Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (per

curiam). Mazurek applied the “clear showing” requirement to “the burden of persuasion,” id.,

which is ordinarily on the plaintiff.

While a preliminary injunction may be generally an “extraordinary remedy,” it is not “extraordinary” where free speech is at issue, see, e.g., Ashcroft v. ACLU, 524 U.S. 656 (2004), (no

abuse of discretion in granting preliminary injunction against enforcement of Child Online Protection Act). And the generally “extraordinary” nature of preliminary injunctions does not

heighten Winter’s “likely” standards, i.e., movants must show likely merits success, not extraordinarily likely merits success. While a “clear showing” is required to meet the burden of persuasion, that requirement is incorporated in the “likely” standard, i.e., movants need only show that

they are likely to succeed on the merits, not that they are clearly likely to succeed on the merits.

“Likely” denotes “probable” and “likelihood” denotes “probability . . . [but] something less than

reasonably certain.” Black’s Law Dictionary 834 (5th ed. 1979). And “probable” means

“[h]aving more evidence for than against; supported by evidence which inclines the mind to believe, but leaves some room for doubt.” Id. at 1081. The Supreme Court deliberately chose the

word “likely” as its standard—without modifiers—and not something higher, though it had the

clear opportunity in Winter. In fact, the Court reiterated the “likely” standard with emphasis:

“Our frequently reiterated standard requires plaintiffs seeking preliminary relief to demonstrate

that irreparable injury is likely in the absence of an injunction.” Winter, 129 S. Ct. at 375 (emphasis in original). So “likely” is the standard.

13

Case 3:08-cv-00483-JRS Document 126 Filed 09/20/10 Page 19 of 51
But Winter’s statements are not the end of the matter because other authorities require

speech-protective application of these standards in free-speech cases—especially for issue advocacy and issue-advocacy groups. One change in the preliminary-injunction standard in freespeech cases is that the government bears the burden of persuasion (after the plaintiff places a

burden on free speech at issue). In such cases, the government must make Mazurek’s “clear showing.” This was made clear in Ashcroft, 524 U.S. 656, which noted the usual burden on “plaintiffs

[to] demonstrate[] that they are likely to prevail on the merits” and have “irreparable injury,” but

then noted the shifted burden in a free-speech case: “As the Government bears the burden of

proof on the ultimate question of . . . constitutionality, respondents must be deemed likely to prevail unless the Government has shown that respondents’ proposed less restrictive alternatives are

less effective than [the challenged provision].” Id. at 666 (citations omitted). The Supreme Court

has reaffirmed this shifted burden: “[T]he burdens at the preliminary injunction stage track the

burdens at trial.” Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418,

429 (2006). Gonzales rejected the “[t]he Government argu[ment] that, although it would bear the

burden of demonstrating a compelling interest as part of its affirmative defense at trial on the

merits, [plaintiff] should have borne the burden of disproving the asserted compelling interests at

the hearing on the preliminary injunction.” Id. “This argument is foreclosed by . . . Ashcroft.” Id.

(citation omitted). So in the present case, the Government has the burden of persuasion to consti- 9

tutionally justify 11 C.F.R. 100.22(b) and FEC’s PAC-status enforcement policy, and if it fails

then a preliminary injunction should issue. See also Iowa Right to Life Committee v. Williams,

187 F.3d 963, 968 (8th Cir. 1999) (placing preliminary-injunction burden on state to justify stat-

 A Fourth Circuit district court, in a situation similar to the present one, recognized that in 9

strict-scrutiny cases the preliminary-injunction burden shifts to the government. Ctr. for Individual Freedom, Inc. v. Ireland, 613 F. Supp. 2d 777, 783-84 (S.D. W. Va. 2009) (“CFIF”).

14

Case 3:08-cv-00483-JRS Document 126 Filed 09/20/10 Page 20 of 51
ute). If the evidence and arguments are equipoised, a preliminary injunction must issue because

the government has the burden. And regardless of the burden, all ties and benefits of the doubt go

to free speech. WRTL-II, 551 U.S. at 469, 474 n.7, 482.

Another speech-protective change required in constitutional-rights cases is application of the

Supremacy Clause. U.S. Const. art. VI. If it is likely that a challenged provision violates First

Amendment rights of expressive association —which determination already includes examining 10

asserted government interests under strict scrutiny—then the preliminary-injunction analysis is

over except for formally recognizing that loss of First Amendment rights is irreparable harm, that

balancing harms favors constitutional rights, and that the public interest is always in protecting

the “supreme Law of the Land.” Id. The government may not be heard to argue that it has an 11

 Nothing in Winter alters the necessity of considering likely merits success first in First 10

Amendment cases. See W. Va. Assoc. of Club Owners & Fraternal Servs., Inc. v. Musgrave, 553

F.3d 292, 298 (4th Cir. 2009) (in First Amendment context, irreparable harm depends on likely

merits success); Newsom ex rel. Newsom v. Albermarle County Sch. Bd., 354 F.3d 249, 254-55

(4th Cir. 2003) (same); Giovani Carandola, Ltd. v. Bason, 303 F.3d 507, 511 (4th Cir. 2001)

(same).

See Byrum v. Landreth, 566 F.3d 442, 445 (5th Cir. 2009) (“There appears to be no dis- 11

pute over the appellants’ entitlement to relief under the other criteria if their First Amendment

rights were violated” (citing Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 369-73 (1976)); Jones v. Caruso, 569

F.3d 258, 277 (6th Cir. 2010) (likely success prong is “most important . . . and often determinative in First Amendment cases”); Phelps-Roper v. Nixon, 545 F.3d 685, 690 (8th Cir. 2008)

(likely merits success in First Amendment case established irreparable harm and favorable equities balance and public interest); 11A Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane,

Federal Practice and Procedure § 2948.1 (2d ed. 1995) (When an alleged deprivation of a constitutional right is involved, most courts hold that no further showing of irreparable harm is necessary.”). As put recently by a federal court in a First Amendment preliminary-injunction decision:

The violation of an individual’s constitutional guarantees is intolerable and undoubtably

causes irreparable injury. The Supreme Court has recognized that “the loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable

injury.” Elrod, 427 U.S. at 372; see also Newson v. Norris, 888 F.2d 371, 378 (6th Cir.

1989) (“[E]ven minimal infringement upon First Amendment values constitutes irreparable

injury sufficient to justify injunctive relief.”). If [the challenged provision] does in fact

violate Plaintiffs’ constitutional freedom of association or speech, allowing its continued

operation would cause Plaintiffs irreparable harm.

15

Case 3:08-cv-00483-JRS Document 126 Filed 09/20/10 Page 21 of 51
enforcement interest, that duly-enacted laws must be presumed constitutional, that there will be a

‘wild west’ scenario shortly before an election, that the status quo must be preserved, or the 12 13

like if the First Amendment prescribes liberty. Such interests asserted for balancing harms or determining public interest are not cognizable if they were inadequate to defeat a determination of

Foster v. Dilger, slip op. at 4-5, No. 3:10-cb-00041-DCR (E.D. Ky. Sept. 9, 2010) (memorandum

and order granting preliminary injunction). Regarding balance of harms: “The harm and difficulty of changing a regulation cannot be said to outweigh the violation of constitutional rights it

perpetuates. It would be far worse that an election continue under an unconstitutional regime than

the Registry experience difficulty of expense in altering that regime.” Id. at 14. And regarding

public interest: “‘It is in the public interest not to perpetuate the unconstitutional application of a

statute.’” Martin-Marietta Corp. v. Bendix Corp., 690 F.2d 558, 568 (6th Cir. 1982); see also G

& V Lounge v. Mich. Liquor Control Comm’n, 23 F.3d 1071, 1079 (6th Cir. 1999) (“[I]t is always in the public interest to prevent the violation of a party’s constitutional rights.”). Foster,

slip op. at 14, No. 3:10-cb-00041-DCR (E.D. Ky. Sept. 9, 2010).

 The CFIF court expressly rejected this argument: “[F]inding these laws unconstitutional 12

will not likely result in the type of chaotic ‘wild west’ scenario Defendants . . . foretell. Rather, it

will simply result in the dissemination of more information of precisely the kind the First

Amendment was designed to protect.” CFIF, 613 F. Supp. 2d at 807.

 The notion that a free-speech and association plaintiff cannot get preliminary injunctive 13

relief because of the status quo was recently rejected by a federal court:

There is a threshold issue of whether a preliminary injunction is proper to grant the relief

Plaintiffs request. The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo

between the parties pending a final determination on the merits. Merrill Lynch, Pierce,

Fenner & Smith v. Grall, 836 F. Supp. 428, 431-432 (W.D. Mich. 1993) (citing University

of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981)). In this case, the status quo is the operation and enforcement of [the challenged contribution limit]. It could be argued that enjoining enforcement of the statute would be improper because doing so would disrupt the status

quo rather than preserve it. However, the Sixth Circuit has held that “[t]oo much concern

with the status quo may lead a court into error.” Stenberg v. Cheker Oil Co., 573 F.2d 921,

925 (6th Cir. 1978). There is no “particular magic” in the phrase “status quo.” Id. “The

purpose of a preliminary injunction is always to prevent irreparable injury so as to preserve

the court’s ability to render a meaningful decision on the merits.” Id. If the current status

quo is the cause of the irreparable injury, the Court should alter the status quo to prevent

the injury. Id. In doing so, the Court returns to the “last uncontested status quo between the

parties.” Id. (citing Ross-Whitney Corp. v. Smith Kline & French Laboratories, 207 F.2d

190 (9th Cir. 1953)). Here, there is no bar to the Court granting a preliminary injunction

because it would disrupt the “status quo.”

Foster v. Dilger, slip op. at 3-4, No. 3:10-cb-00041-DCR (E.D. Ky. Sept. 9, 2010) (memorandum

and order granting preliminary injunction).

16

Case 3:08-cv-00483-JRS Document 126 Filed 09/20/10 Page 22 of 51
likely success on the merits. The First Amendment trumps all such interests.

Another change required in free-speech cases is acquiescence to controlling authorities mandating how issue-advocacy cases must be decided, which mandates apply in the preliminary-injunction context just at they do at other litigation stages. WRTL-II mandated speech-protective

standards for litigation in order to protect issue advocacy. It expressly rejected any intent-andeffect test for regulating issue advocacy because “the difficulty of distinguishing between discussion of issues on the one hand and advocacy of election or defeat of candidates on the other

. . . would afford ‘“no security for free discussion.”’” 551 U.S. at 467 (citations omitted). Rather,

[t]he test to distinguish constitutionally protected political speech from speech that . . . may

[be] proscribe[d]should provide a safe harbor for those who wish to exercise First Amendment rights. The test should also “reflec[t] our ‘profound national commitment to the

principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.’”

Id. (citations omitted). The regulation and enforcement policy challenged here provide no “safe

harbor” because both rely on indistinct lines. The constitutional requirement is that there be

bright, protective lines promoting robust issue advocacy. WRTL-II then prescribed how challenges to issue-advocacy restrictions must be conducted:

To safeguard this liberty [of issue advocacy], the proper standard for an as-applied challenge . . . must be objective, focusing on the substance of the communication rather than

amorphous considerations of intent and effect. See Buckley, [424 U.S.] at 43-44. It must

entail minimal if any discovery, to allow parties to resolve disputes quicklywithout chilling

speech through the threat of burdensome litigation. See Virginia v. Hicks, 539 U.S. 113,

119 (2003). And it must eschew “the open-ended rough-and-tumble of factors,” which

“invit[es] complex argument in a trial court and a virtually inevitable appeal.” Jerome B.

Grubart, Inc. v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., 513 U.S. 527, 547 (1995). In short, it

must give the benefit of any doubt to protecting rather than stifling speech. See New York

Times Co. v. Sullivan, [376 U.S. 254,] 269-270 [(1964)].

Citizens reiterated part of this statement, 130 S. Ct. at 896, and declared that “the FEC's

“business is to censor” and that the First Amendment is “[p]remised on mistrust of governmental

power, id. at 896, 898. WRTL-II said that the fact that an ad is run near an election does not mean

17

Case 3:08-cv-00483-JRS Document 126 Filed 09/20/10 Page 23 of 51
it is regulable electioneering. 551 U.S. at 472 (“If this were enough to prove that an ad is the

functional equivalent of express advocacy, then [the electioneering-communication prohibition]

would be constitutional in all of its applications.”). Citizens also recognized that challenges to

campaign-finance laws would, by their nature, be brought near elections, These principles an- 14

swer common arguments made, and interests asserted, by government entities in the context of

preliminary injunctions sought in First Amendment free speech and association cases brought

near elections. For example, the fact that a challenge is brought near an election has no bearing

on whether the challenged provision is likely unconstitutional and, therefore, no bearing on

whether a preliminary injunction should issue. Bringing a challenge near an election may not be

held against a plaintiff in a preliminary-injunction analysis because that is naturally when such

challenges arise. And every effort should be made, including at the preliminary-injunction stage,

to quickly resolve suits without burdensome litigation in a way that promotes robust public debate on issues of the day.

The government also must prove its interests, e.g., that the public-interest would be served

by denying the preliminary injunction because a ‘wild west’ scenario is likely to ensue. The government must provide proof, not speculation. See Gonzales, 546 U.S. at 430 (“strict scrutiny”

rejects “categorical approach”). The government “must do more than simply posit the existence

 As Citizens put it: 14

It is well known that the public begins to concentrate on elections only in the weeks immediatelybefore theyare held. There are short timeframes in which speech can have influence.

The need or relevance of the speech will often first be apparent at this stage in the campaign. The decision to speak is made in the heat of political campaigns, when speakers react

to messages conveyed by others. A speaker’s ability to engage in political speech that could

have a chance of persuading voters is stifled if the speaker must first commence a protracted lawsuit. Bythe time the lawsuit concludes, the election will be over and the litigants

in most cases will have neither the incentive nor, perhaps, the resources to carry on . . . .

130 S. Ct. at 895.

18

Case 3:08-cv-00483-JRS Document 126 Filed 09/20/10 Page 24 of 51
of the disease sought to be cured. It must demonstrate that the recited harms are real, not merely

conjectural, and that the regulation will in fact alleviate these harms in a direct and material

way.” Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622, 664 (1994) (internal citation omitted).

From the foregoing, it should be clear that the following Fourth Circuit (now-vacated) characterization of the locus and nature of the preliminary-injunction burden, in the opinion then before the Supreme Court, was simply wrong:

Notwithstanding the numerous Supreme Court opinions on the subject, the regulation of

speech related to political campaigns remains a difficult and complicated area of law that

is still developing. And for that reason, as well as the stringent preliminary injunction

standard, Real Truth bears a heavy burden in showing its likelihood of success. Any relaxation of its burden, for example to require that Real Truth show only a possibility that it

will eventually prevail, would be inadequate. See Winter, 129 S.Ct. at 375-76. (emphasis [15]

in original).

575 F.3d at 349, vacated, 130 S. Ct. 2371. RTAO does not have the burden of persuasion; the

government has it. There is no authority (the Fourth Circuit cited none and this statement remains

vacated) for the proposition that the difficulty and complicated nature of the law (which in reality

is quite simple if North Carolina Right to Life v. Leake, 525 F.3d 274 (4th Cir. 2008), is simply

followed), makes the Winter standard of “likely” merits success any heavier. “Likely” remains

“likely” whatever the complexity of the law. In fact, WRTL-II mandates that where doubts exist

they must be resolved in favor of free speech, 551 U.S. at 469, 474 n.7, 482, so complexity in the

law would favor RTAO, not the government. And the Winter standard is what the Supreme Court

said it is—a “likely” test in four parts—regardless of modifiers attached to it, so calling it “stringent” does not alter the standard (and in any event that modifier is vacated).

As presented to the Supreme Court (slightly modified) in RTAO’s certiorari petition, at 12-

14, the following principles govern preliminary injunctions in addition to Winter’s standards:

 RTAO sought no relaxation of “likely” to “possib[ly],” so that statement does not apply. 

15

19

Case 3:08-cv-00483-JRS Document 126 Filed 09/20/10 Page 25 of 51
(1) the requirements of “likely” success and irreparable harm are not made “stringent” (i.e.,

“highly likely”) by the required “clear showing” of likelihood;

(2) the preliminary-injunction burden is not heavier with “a difficult and complicated area of

law that is still developing”;

(3) the preliminary-injunction burden follows the merits burden, i.e., the government must

justify restrictions;

(4) the government must prove that alleged harms are real, not speculative;

(5) likelihood of success should be considered first because other preliminary-injunction elements follow (violating free speech is irreparable harm and the balance of equities and public

interest favor upholding constitutional rights);

(6) WRTL-II’s streamlined procedures and protective rules must be reflected in preliminaryinjunction decisions involving issue advocacy near elections, see 551 U.S. at 478;

(7) standards involving issue advocacy must reflect that “the people are sovereign,” Buckley,

424 U.S. at 14, there is a “‘profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public

issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open,’” id. (citation omitted), and the First

Amendment mandates a “freedom of speech” presumption;

(8) this free-speech presumption means that the status quo in a prohibitory injunction is the

state of the law before the challenged provision regulating speech;

(9) where the unambiguously-campaign-related requirement is at issue, see infra, the government always has the burden of meeting that threshold burden before meeting the burden imposed

by the required scrutiny;

(10) because strict scrutiny is the antithesis of deference or presumed constitutionality, these

are not afforded to speech regulation;

20

Case 3:08-cv-00483-JRS Document 126 Filed 09/20/10 Page 26 of 51
(11) in determining the balance of harms and public interest, “[w]here the First Amendment

is implicated, the tie goes to the speaker,” WRTL-II, 551 U.S. at 474;

(12) agencies have no per se interest in restricting or regulating speech; their only interest is

in enforcing the laws as they exist, with any interest in the particular content of those laws being

beyond the agency’s interest when balancing harms;

(13) the fact that issue-advocacy cases may occur near elections favors the plaintiffs in the

preliminary-injunction balancing because issue advocacy is most important when public interest

is highest: “a group can certainly choose to run an issue ad to coincide with public interest” without election proximity indicating “electioneering,” WRTL-II, 551 U.S. at 473;

(14) likely unconstitutional laws may not operate just because an election is near.

Applying Winter’s preliminary-injunction standard with these essential speech-protective

corollaries in the First Amendment free speech and association context readily results in a

preliminary-injunction decision favoring RTAO.

II. RTAO Has Likely Merits Success.

After FEC’s decision not to enforce two challenged provisions herein because of adverse

holdings, only two remain: the alternate definition of “expressly advocating” at 11 C.F.R. 16

100.22(b) and FEC’s PAC-status enforcement policy. Just as FEC could not justify its abandoned

regulations, Defendants (collectively “Government”) are unable to meet their burden of justifying

the remaining regulation and policy, so RTAO has likely merits success.

A. 11 C.F.R. 100.22(b) Is Vague, Overbroad, Beyond Statutory Authority, and Void.

RTAO challenges 11 C.F.R. 100.22(b)—FEC’s alternate, non-magic-words, express-advo-

 The regulation at 11 C.F.R. 100.57 was held unconstitutional in EMILY’s List, 581 F.3d 1 16

, and the Supreme Court held that 11 C.F.R. 114.15 was “precisely what WRTL sought to avoid,”

Citizens, 130 S. Ct. at 895-96.

21

Case 3:08-cv-00483-JRS Document 126 Filed 09/20/10 Page 27 of 51
cacy definition—as vague, overbroad, beyond statutory authority, and void under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. 706. FEC’s “expressly advocating” definition defines 17

part of the “independent expenditure” definition, i.e., a non-coordinated “expenditure . . . expressly advocating the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate.” 2 U.S.C. 431(17). Independent expenditures require reporting and disclaimers, 2 U.S.C. §§ 434(c) and 441d, and can

trigger PAC status, 2 U.S.C. 431(4) (PAC definition), which is a particular concern of RTAO.

The appellate panel affirmed this Court’s holding that RTAO lacked a reasonable likelihood

of success on the merits because it said that the definition is similar to WRTL-II’s appeal-to-vote

test. 575 F.3d at 349. That judgment was vacated and the preliminary-injunction appeal remanded for reconsideration in light of Citizens. See supra.

Standard of review. The standard of review is strict scrutiny, but it is actually unnecessary

to decide it because Virginia Society for Human Life v. FEC, 263 F.3d 379 (4th Cir. 2001)

(“VSHL”), declared Section 100.22(b) unconstitutional without articulating the level of scrutiny

by simply identifying subpart (b) as inconsistent with Buckley (as it remains). VSHL, 263 F.3d at

390-93. Leake employed a similar analysis (by identifying the Supreme Court’s two approved

ways to regulate speech and holding North Carolina’s approach inconsistent) in rejecting a twopart definition for regulating speech where the first part captured magic-words express advocacy

and the second tried to capture more speech, just as FEC attempts with 11 C.F.R. 100.22(b).

 Subpart (a) of Section 100.22 defines “expressly advocating” with the Supreme Court’s 17

magic-words approach. See infra. Subpart (b) uses this vague, overbroad and unauthorized test:

When taken as whole . . . could only be interpreted by a reasonable person as containing

advocacy of the election or defeat of one or more clearly identified candidate(s) because

—(1) The electoral portion of the communication is unmistakable, unambiguous, and

suggestive of only one meaning; and (2) Reasonable minds could not differ as to whether

it encourages actions to elect or defeat one or more clearly identified candidate(s) or encourages some other kind of action.

22

Case 3:08-cv-00483-JRS Document 126 Filed 09/20/10 Page 28 of 51
Leake, 525 F.3d at 280-86. The Leake dissent rightly identified the majority’s scrutiny as strict

because it employed WRTL-II’s appeal-to-vote test, “developed in the strict scrutiny context, to

strike down portions of North Carolina’s contribution, disclosure, and political committee regulations.” Id. at 311. That same scrutiny applies here because the applicability of WRTL-II’s test is

central and because 11 C.F.R. 100.22(b) “burdens political speech.” WRTL-II, 551 U.S. at 464

(collecting cases). Since Subsection (b) can trigger PAC status, 2 U.S.C. 431(4) (PAC definition), strict scrutiny applies because provisions imposing PAC status require strict scrutiny. See

Citizens, 130 S. Ct. at 898. See also infra at 36. Moreover, Leake mandates that because application of WRTL-II’s appeal-to-vote test, “in particular, has the potential to trammel vital political

speech,” it “warrants careful judicial scrutiny.” 525 F.3d at 283 (emphasis added).

Unambiguously-campaign-related requirement. In addition to bearing the burden of justifying its regulation under strict scrutiny, the Government must bear the threshold burden of demonstrating that its regulation and enforcement policy meet the unambiguously-campaign-related

requirement established by Buckley, 424 U.S. at 79-81, from which the Court derived two tests

that govern this case: (1) the major-purpose test, which determines which groups may be treated

as “political committees,” id. at 79 (“organizations that are under the control of a candidate or the

major purpose of which is the nomination or election of a candidate”), and (2) the express-advocacy test, which determines which communications may be treated as “independent expenditures,” id. at 80 (“[W]e construe ‘expenditure’ . . . to reach only funds used for communications

that expressly advocate [footnote omitted] the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate.

This reading is directed precisely to that spending that is unambiguously related to the campaign

of a particular federal candidate.” (emphasis added)).

Buckley’s unambiguously-campaign-related requirement asks whether “the relation of the

23

Case 3:08-cv-00483-JRS Document 126 Filed 09/20/10 Page 29 of 51
information sought to the purpose of the Act [regulating elections] may be too remote,” and,

therefore, “impermissibly broad.” Buckley, 424 U.S. 80 (emphasis added). The Court required

that government restrict its election-related laws to reach only First Amendment activities that

are “unambiguously related to the campaign of a particular federal candidate,” id. (emphasis

added), in short, “unambiguously campaign related,” id. at 81 (emphasis added).

The reason for the unambiguously-campaign-related requirement is twofold. First, since the

only authority to regulate core political speech in this context is the authority to regulate elections, see id. at 13 (“constitutional power of Congress to regulate . . . elections is well established”), any restriction must be “unambiguously campaign related.” Id. at 81. Second, core political speech must not be burdened. Buckley noted a dissolving-distinction problem as requiring a

bright, speech-protective line between (1) “discussion of issues and candidates” and (2) “advocacy of election or defeat of candidates.” Id. at 42. The Court elaborated further on the necessity

of the bright line—between (1) “discussion, laudation, [and] general advocacy” and (2) “solicitation”—to protect issue advocacy. Id. at 43 (emphasis added).

18, 19

In Leake, the Fourth Circuit recognized this unambiguously-campaign-related requirement as

the controlling analysis and as requiring a magic-word express-advocacy test for independent

expenditures and a narrow appeal-to vote test, applying only to electioneering communications:

Buckley applied the unambiguously-campaign-related requirement to (1) expenditure limi- 18

tations, id. at 42-44; (2) PAC status and disclosure, id. at 79; (3) non-PAC disclosure of contributions and independent expenditures, id. at 79-81; and (4) contributions. Id. at 23 n.24, 78 (“So

defined, ‘contributions’ have a sufficiently close relationship to the goals of the Act, for they are

connected with a candidate or his campaign.”).

FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, 479 U.S. 238 (1986) (“MCFL”), employed the 19

unambiguously-campaign-related requirement in imposing the express-advocacy construction on

“expenditures” barred by 2 U.S.C. 441b, 479 U.S. at 249, and in reiterating that the only groups

subject to imposed PAC status are those controlled by candidates or whose major purpose is

nominating or electing candidates, id. at 253, 262.

24

Case 3:08-cv-00483-JRS Document 126 Filed 09/20/10 Page 30 of 51
Pursuant to their power to regulate elections, legislatures may establish campaign finance

laws, so long as those laws are addressed to communications that are unambiguously

campaign related. The Supreme Court has identified two categories of communication as

being unambiguously campaign related. First, “express advocacy,” defined as a communication that uses specific election-related words. Second, “the functional equivalent of

express advocacy,” defined as an “electioneering communication” that “is susceptible of

no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a specific

candidate.” This latter category, in particular, has the potential to trammel vital political

speech, and thus regulation of speech as “the functional equivalent of express advocacy”

warrants careful judicial scrutiny.

525 F.3d at 282-83 (emphasis added). Given Leake’s holding, 11 C.F.R. 100.22(b) fails as a 20

matter of law in this Circuit. Leake also held that the unambiguously-campaign-related require- 21

ment mandates a narrow major-purpose test for determining PAC status. Id. at 287-90. Applying

these holdings readily reveals that the challenged regulations and enforcement policy at issue 22

here are unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, beyond statutory authority, and void under the

APA, 5 U.S.C. 706, and that RTAO has likely success on the merits.

In meeting its burden of persuasion, the Government must as a threshold matter prove that

the challenged provision and enforcement policy capture only activity that is unambiguously

campaign related because Buckley treated the requirement as a threshold consideration. See

 Thus, Leake recognized that WRTL-II applied an unambiguously-campaign-related re20

quirement when it created its appeal-to-vote test to protect issue advocacy from prohibition as an

“electioneering communication”—which test applies only to electioneering communications.

 Any argument from the mere inclusion of the word “ambiguous” in FEC’s alternate 21

express-advocacy definition (“electoral portion . . . is . . . unambiguous”) fails to satisfy Leake’s

unambiguously-campaign-related requirement because (a) the requirement’s application is already settled by Leake (requires magic words) and (b) “unambiguous” modifies “electoral portion,” not “campaign related,” which entirely alters the meaning.

 The Tenth Circuit has joined the Fourth Circuit in recognizing the unambiguously22

campaign-related requirement, New Mexico Youth Organized v. Herrera, 611 F.3d 669, 676

(10th Cir. 2010), as have the courts in Broward Coal. of Condos., Homeowners Ass’ns and Cmty.

Orgs., Inc. v. Browning, No. 4:08cv445, 2009 WL 1457972, at *5 (N.D. Fla. May 22, 2009) (order granting summary judgment) (recognizing and same two categories of regulable speech as

recognized in Leake), CFIF, 613 F. Supp. 2d at 785, and National Right to Work Legal Def. and

Educ. Found. v. Herbert, 581 F. Supp. 2d 1132, 1141-42, 1144 (D. Utah 2008) (same).

25

Case 3:08-cv-00483-JRS Document 126 Filed 09/20/10 Page 31 of 51
Buckley, 424 U.S. at 44-48 (applying express-advocacy construction because of unambiguouslycampaign-related requirement before applying appropriate scrutiny). Preliminary-injunction burdens “track the burdens at trial.” Gonzales, 546 U.S. at 429.

“[C]onsideration in light of Citizens.” The Supreme Court “remanded . . . for . . . consideration in light of Citizens.” 130 S. Ct. 2371. What in Citizens illumines this reconsideration? Two

things, at least, in addition to its general reassertion of protection for issue advocacy and issueadvocacy groups. See supra at I.A.

First, the Supreme Court surely had in mind the clear statement of the Citizens dissent that

“express advocacy” requires “magic words”: “If there was ever any significant uncertainty about

what counts as the functional equivalent of express advocacy, there has been little doubt about

what counts as express advocacy since the ‘magic words’ test of Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1,

44, n. 52 (1976) (per curiam).” Citizens, 130 S. Ct. at 935 n.8 (Stevens, J., joined by Stevens,

Ginsburg, Breyer & Sotomayor, JJ., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (emphasis added).

See also id. at 956 (equating express advocacy with “magic words”). This statement directly applies to FEC’s non-magic-words alternate definition, and it is a reiteration of what the Justices

have been reaffirming since McConnell about express advocacy. This alone proves that an

express-advocacy definition is unconstitutional unless it conforms to the definition given by the

Court when it created “express advocacy” as a term of art in Buckley and clearly defined it as requiring “express words of advocacy of election or defeat, such as ‘vote for,’ ‘elect,’ ‘support,’

‘cast your ballot for,’ ‘Smith for Congress,’ ‘vote against,’ ‘defeat,’ ‘reject,’” 424 U.S. at 44 n.52,

which term of art was then incorporated by Congress in the “independent expenditure” definition. Express advocacy is “limited to communications that include explicit words of advocacy of

election or defeat of a candidate” and “appl[ies] only to expenditures for communications that in

26

Case 3:08-cv-00483-JRS Document 126 Filed 09/20/10 Page 32 of 51
express terms advocate the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate for federal office.”

Id. at 43-44. The Court reiterated in MCFL, 479 U.S. 238, that “a finding of ‘express advocacy’

depended upon the use of language such as ‘vote for,’ ‘elect,’ ‘support,’ etc.” Id. at 249 (citation

omitted). McConnell repeatedly equated “express advocacy” with “magic words.” See 540 U.S.

at 126, 191-93, 217-19. So McConnell’s hyperbolic “functionally meaningless” statement about

the express-advocacy line, id. at 193, did not eliminate “express advocacy” as a category of regulated speech requiring “magic words,” rather McConnell used that analysis to add regulation of

“electioneering communications” to ongoing regulation of magic-words express advocacy. PostMcConnell, equation of express advocacy with magic words continues. In WRTL-II, all members

of the Court equated “express advocacy” with “magic words.” See 551 U.S. at 474 n.7 (Alito,

C.J., joined by Alito, J.), 495 (Scalia, J., joined by Kennedy & Thomas, JJ., concurring in part

and concurring in judgment), 513 (Souter, J., joined by Stevens, Ginsburg, & Breyer, JJ., dissenting). And now, as noted above, the Citizens dissent has done the same, adding Justice

Sotomayor’s voice to the unanimous pronouncement.

The Fourth Circuit itself held Section 100.22(b) unconstitutional for not requiring magic

words, VSHL, 263 F.3d at 329, and other decisions held that express advocacy requires magic 23

words, see Leake, 525 F.3d at 283 (requires “specific election-related words”); FEC v. Christian

 The First Circuit has also determined that Subsection (b) is invalid as an overly-broad re- 23

striction on free speech. See Maine Right to Life v. FEC, 98 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1996). See also Right

to Life of Duchess County, lnc. v. FEC, 6 F. Supp.2d 248, 253-54 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (same). The

Eighth Circuit held that a state regulation with a definition of express advocacy identical to Subsection (b) would likely not withstand a constitutional challenge. See Iowa Right to Life Committee, 187 F.3d 963. And Leake, 525 F.3d at 280-86, held a statute similar to Subsection (b) unconstitutional. Other courts have rejected Furgatch-style definitions. See Chamber of Commerce of

the U.S. v. Moore, 288 F.3d 187 (5th Cir. 2002); Gov. Gray Davis Comm. v. American Taxpayers

Alliance, 102 Cal. App. 4th 449 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002); League of Women Voters of Colo. v.

Davidson, 23 P.3d 1266 (Colo. App. 2001); Washington State Republican Party v. Washington

State Public Disclosure Comm’n, 4 P.3d 808 (Wash. 2000). 

27

Case 3:08-cv-00483-JRS Document 126 Filed 09/20/10 Page 33 of 51
Action Network, 110 F.3d 1049, 1062 (4th Cir. 1997) (“CAN-II”) (same). These holdings directly

control this case. Other circuits have held that express advocacy requires a magic-words test. See

Faucher v. FEC, 928 F.2d 468, 470 (1st Cir. 1991); FEC v. Central Long Island Tax Reform,

616 F.2d 45, 53 (2d Cir.1980); Center for Individual Freedom v. Carmouche, 449 F.3d 655, 664-

65 (5th Cir. 2006); Anderson v. Spear, 356 F.3d 651, 664 (6th Cir. 2004); Brownsburg Area Patrons Affecting Change v. Baldwin, 137 F.3d 503, 506 (7th Cir. 1998); Iowa Right to Life Committee, 187 F.3d 963 (striking definition patterned on 11 C.F.R. 100.22(b)); California Pro-Life

Council v. Getman, 328 F.3d 1088, 1098 (9th Cir. 2003) . And post-McConnell other courts 24 25

have joined Leake in holding that the only two types of (non-PAC) speech that are regulable are

magic-words express advocacy and federally-defined electioneering communications meeting

WRTL-II’s appeal-to-vote test. See Herrera, 611 F.3d at 676; Browning, No. 4:08cv445, 2009

WL 1457972, at *5; Herbert, 581 F. Supp. 2d at 1144.

Section 100.22(b) is also beyond statutory authority. The regulation cites as authority 2

U.S.C. 431(17), the “independent expenditure” definition, which regulates only “an expenditure

by a person [] expressly advocating the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate.” That

definition implements the magic-words, express-advocacy constructions in Buckley, 424 U.S. 44,

80, and MCFL, 479 U.S. at 249. There is no congressional authority anywhere for FEC to interMCFL This decision recognized that even FEC v. Furgatch, 807 F.2d 857 (9th Cir. 1987), on 24

which FEC relied for the challenged regulation,“presumed express advocacy must contain some

explicit words of advocacy.” Getman, 328 F.3d at 1098. See also American Civil Liberties Union

of Nevada v. Heller, 378 F.3d 979, 985 (9th Cir. 2004) (“‘McConnell left intact the ability of

courts to make distinctions between express advocacy and issue advocacy, where such distinctions are necessary to cure vagueness and over-breadth in statutes which regulate more speech

than that for which the legislature has established a significant governmental interest’” (citation

omitted)).

 State supreme courts have also held that “express advocacy” requires “magic words.” See 25

Brownsburg Area Patrons Affecting Change, 714 N.E. 2d 135; Osterberg v. Peca, 12 S.W. 3d 31

(Tex. 2000).

28

Case 3:08-cv-00483-JRS Document 126 Filed 09/20/10 Page 34 of 51
pret “expressly advocating” other than as requiring magic words. Congress has only regulated

two types of non-PAC campaign-related speech: (1) “independent expenditures,” 2 U.S.C.

431(17), for which it employed Buckley’s and MCFL’s magic-words “expressly advocating” as a

term of art with fixed meaning following the Supreme Court’s constructions of “expenditure” in

those cases to require magic-words express advocacy, and (2) “electioneering communications,”

2 U.S.C. 434(f)(3) which it defined as essentially targeted, broadcast ads identifying candidates

30 and 60 days before primaries and general elections respectively. Neither definition contains an

appeal-to-vote test, so Congress has not asserted its authority to regulate under that test (especially in the independent-expenditure context), but WRTL-II did limit the electioneering-communication prohibition to communications with WRTL-II’s appeal to vote (before Citizens made the

test unnecessary). Congress has nowhere sought to regulate any hybrid of these, only magicwords independent expenditures and bright-line electioneering communications (for which the

appeal-to-vote test no longer functions). Moreover, the only “expenditure” that FEC may regulate

by statute is one “for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office,” 2 U.S.C. 431(9),

and it was precisely to such “for the purpose of influencing” language that Buckley gave “expenditure” an express-advocacy construction to preserve it from vagueness and overbreadth. 424

U.S. at 77, 80.

Furthermore, for both statutory and constitutional reasons, it is simply illogical to assert that

any sort of “functional equivalent of express advocacy,” WRTL-II, 551 U.S. at 469 (emphasis

added), can be a type of express advocacy. If they were the same, Congress would have included

electioneering-communication within the independent-expenditure definition, which it did not,

and McConnell and WRTL-II would have simply said that an electioneering communication was

a type of independent expenditure, rather than identifying some of it as “equivalent.” And WRTL29

Case 3:08-cv-00483-JRS Document 126 Filed 09/20/10 Page 35 of 51
II made it clear, in response to Justice Scalia’s vagueness accusation, that the appeal-to-vote test

was not vague because it was anchored by the statutory electioneering-communication definition:

Justice SCALIA thinks our test impermissibly vague. . . . [W]e agree with Justice SCALIA

on the imperative for clarity in this area; that is why our test affords protection unless an

ad is susceptible of no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or

against a specific candidate. . . . And keep in mind this test is only triggered if the speech

meets the brightline requirements of [the electioneering-communication definition] in the

first place.

551 U.S. at 474 n.7 (emphasis in original). Conversely, absent the anchor of electioneering-communication definition’s temporal and modal limitations, WRTL-II clearly indicates that Justice

Scalia would be correct, i.e., the appeal-to-vote test would be unconstitutional vague and

overbroad if released from its mooring. Neither the notion of “functional equivalence,” which

was narrowed by WRTL-II’s appeal-to-vote test, nor the appeal-to-vote test itself is a free-floating

test that Congress or FEC may apply elsewhere. So Congress could not have enacted a hybrid of

an express-advocacy test with the appeal-to-vote test had it wanted to, which it did not. Consequently, 11 C.F.R. 100.22(b) is beyond statutory and constitutional authority. 

In the face of all this authority declaring that “express advocacy” is a magic-words standard,

the FEC justifies Section 100.22(b) based on the express-advocacy test in Furgatch, 807 F.2d

857. FEC, “Express Advocacy . . . ,” 60 Fed. Reg. 35291, 35294 (July 6, 1995) (explanation &

justification). But Subsection (b) does not even follow Furgatch’s mandate that “speech may

only be termed ‘advocacy’ if it presents a clear plea for action, and . . . it must be clear what action is advocated[, i.e.,] . . . a vote for or against a candidate . . . ” 807 F.2d at 864. Section 26

100.22(b) contains no clear-plea-for-action requirement that must be to “vote.” Absent this cenFurgatch applied this to an anti-Nixon ad that proclaimed “DON’T LET HIM DO IT!” 26

where the only way to “[not] let him do it” was to vote against him. The Ninth Circuit decided

that there was a “clear plea for action” and the action solicited was “a vote for or against a candidate” so the communication at issue fit the test.

30

Case 3:08-cv-00483-JRS Document 126 Filed 09/20/10 Page 36 of 51
tral element of Furgatch, FEC cannot assert that its test is identical to Furgatch’s test. Anyway, it

does not control here. In CAN-II, 110 F.3d 1049, the Fourth Circuit noted Buckley’s and MCFL’s

requirement of magic words for express advocacy, interpreted the Furgatch test, then expressly 27

rejected FEC’s assertion that it followed Furgatch in promulgating Section 100.22(b):

Contrary to its assertions, the Commission’s regulatory definition of “express advocacy”

does not parallel this test. According to the FEC:

[l]ike the first prong in Furgatch, the Commission’s regulation requires the “electoral

portion of the communication [to be] unmistakable, unambiguous, and suggestive of

only one meaning” (11 C.F.R. § 100.22(b)(1)). Like the second and third prongs, the

Commission’s regulation requires that “[r]easonable minds could not differ as to

whether it encourages actions to elect or defeat one or more clearly identified candidate(s) or encourages some other kind of action” (11 C.F.R. § 100.22(b)(2)). Appellant’s Reply Br. at 9 (footnote omitted). It is plain that the FEC has simply selected

certain words and phrases from Furgatch that give the FEC the broadest possible

authority to regulate political speech (i.e., “unmistakable,” “unambiguous,” “suggestive of only one meaning,” “encourage[ment]”, 807 F.2d at 864), and ignored those

portions of Furgatch, quoted above, which focus on the words and text of the message.

1054 n.5. In this circuit, the FEC cannot succeed in arguing that Section 100.22(b) follows

Furgatch. That has already been authoritatively rejected. In fact, CAN-II awarded attorney’s fees

against FEC for asserting its baseless position in defense of Section 100.22(b). 110 F.3d at 1064.

 The Fourth Circuit’s extended interpretation of what Furgatch required included this: 27

Indeed, the simple holding of Furgatch was that, in those instances where political communications do include an explicit directive to voters to take some course of action, but that

course of action is unclear, “context”—including the timing of the communication in

relation to the events of the day—may be considered in determining whether the action

urged is the election or defeat of a particular candidate for public office.

Id. at 1054 (emphasis in original). And the Fourth Circuit expressly noted that the following FEC

representation in opposing certiorari for Furgatch was inconsistent with Section 100.22(b):

“The court of appeals’ assessment of Mr. Furgatch’s advertisement under [the “express

advocacy’] standard turns upon the particular facts of this case, and thus does not necessarily indicate how courts will assess other communications in other circumstances. Such a

fact-dependent determination does not warrant plenary review by this Court, particularly

since the Court discussed the proper application of the express advocacy standard only last

Term in FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Inc. [479 U.S. at 248-50] 107 S.Ct. at 623,

and applied it in a manner consistent with that of the court of appeals in this case.”

CAN-II, 110 F.3d at 1054 (citation omitted). MCFL’s magic-words test controls.

31

Case 3:08-cv-00483-JRS Document 126 Filed 09/20/10 Page 37 of 51
So Citizens highlights that all current Supreme Court Justices agree with the numerous

courts holding that “express advocacy” itself requires magic words, despite the fact that “electioneering communications” may be regulated under a different standard. Accordingly, nothing

has altered the controlling Fourth Circuit holdings that express advocacy requires explicit words

expressly advocating the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate.

Second, in remanding for reconsideration in light of Citizens, the Supreme Court clearly had

in mind its forceful repudiation of FEC’s approach to regulation in 11 C.F.R. 114.15, which was

based on the same sort of subjective, balancing, speech-chilling, FEC-empowering, ad hoc, weknow-it-when-we-see-it approach taken by FEC in both 11 C.F.R. 100.22(b) and its PAC-status

enforcement policy, see infra. Before the Supreme Court in this case, FEC expressly relied on its

interpretation (articulated in now-abandoned 11 C.F.R. 114.15) of WRTL-II’s appeal-to-vote test,

551 U.S. at 469-70, insisting that WRTL-II’s context-sensitive application of the appeal-to-vote

test was a part of the test itself. Br. Resp’ts at 15-16, RTAO, 130 S. Ct. 2371 (“To the extent the

standards differ, Section 100.22(b) is narrower than the WRTL test, as the regulation requires an

‘unambiguous’ electoral portion, 11 C.F.R. 100.22(b)(1), while the lead opinion in WRTL looks

to the ‘mention’ of an election and similar ‘indicia of express advocacy.’”). Taking note of what

Citizens said about the FEC’s approach to its appeal-to-vote test in 11 C.F.R. 114.15 should remove all doubt that the FEC may not take the same approach with regard to 11 C.F.R. 100.22(b)

and its PAC-status enforcement policy.

The Citizens repudiation of 11 C.F.R. 114.15 is too lengthy to reproduce here, but bears review, see 130 S. Ct. at 895-96. Citizens noted that FEC reduced the Court’s objective, protective

test into a subjective, unprotective rule. It reduced the appeal-to-vote test to a mere part of FEC’s

“two-part, 11-factor balancing test,” as Citizens described it. Id. at 895. FEC made details of the

32

Case 3:08-cv-00483-JRS Document 126 Filed 09/20/10 Page 38 of 51
application of the appeal-to-vote test to particular grassroots lobbying ads a part of Section

114.15. Ignoring WRTL-II’s reassertion of strong constitutional protection for issue advocacy,

FEC imposed maximum control over it. FEC made a rule so vague and overbroad that Citizens

declared it like a prior restraint for compelling speakers to seek advisory opinions before daring

to speak. Id. at 895-96. And Citizens noted that many persons could not afford the protracted litigation necessary to dispute FEC’s de facto licensing scheme (including the discovery that FEC

insisted on in Citizens despite WRTL’s mandate of “minimal if any discovery, to allow parties to

resolve disputes quickly without chilling speech through the threat of burdensome litigation”). Id.

FEC became the arbiter of what persons could say. FEC did “precisely what WRTL sought to

avoid,” Citizens concluded. Id. at 896. It chilled political speech.

FEC’s alternate express advocacy test at 11 C.F.R. 100.22(b) takes the same vague and

overbroad approach. It requires examination of an undefined “electoral portion.” It allows “limited reference to external events, such as the proximity of an election,” though WRTL-II expressly

eschewed more than the most general and basic contextual considerations and expressly said that

“proximity to an election” could not determine the meaning of a communication. 551 U.S. at

472-74. It relies on a “reasonable person” standard, while WRTL-II required an objective stan 28

 There cannot be express-advocacy criteria that were forbidden in applying WRTL-II’s 28

appeal-to-vote test. WRTL-II said that ads meeting its test were the functional equivalents of express advocacy to which McConnell alluded. 551 U.S. at 469-70. WRTL-II also said that context

and proximity to an election could not be used in determining whether an ad fell within the test,

but that the test must look to the substance of the communication itself. Id. at 469, 472-74.

WRTL-II repudiated the context-and-proximity approach FEC and Intervenors took in their effort

to prove that WRTL’s ads were the functional equivalent of express advocacy, along with the

burdensome discovery imposed on WRTL in an effort to establish contextual factors. Yet

Section100.22(b) embraces context and proximity to an election as criteria for express advocacy

(the supposed equivalent), to be determined by burdensome investigations in enforcement actions

and by burdensome discovery in litigation. “Such litigation constitutes a severe burden on political speech.” WRTL-II, 551 U.S. at 468 n.5. If such severe burdens are unconstitutional in applying the appeal-to-vote test, then WRTL-II’s declaration of equivalence mandates that these bur33

Case 3:08-cv-00483-JRS Document 126 Filed 09/20/10 Page 39 of 51
dard based on the meaning of the actual words and not what some hypothetical person might

think the ad in general and in context might mean. Id. at 469-70. It relies on the operative phrase

“advocacy of the election or defeat of . . . candidates, though Buckley expressly held that the

phrase “‘advocating the election or defeat of’ a candidate ” is unconstitutionally vague and

overbroad absent the express-advocacy construction. 424 U.S. at 42, 44. Other vague and

overbroad terms in Subsection (b), such as “encourages,” “actions,” and “suggestive,” further 29 30

diminish the constitutionality of, and statutory authority for, this regulation. As a result, would-be

speakers, enforcers, and courts are unable to tell what is permitted. Speech is impermissibly

chilled. The alternative express advocacy test applies year-round, includes non-broadcast communications, and does not require targeting, so its vagueness is not mitigated by being confined

to communications otherwise meeting the brightline electioneering communication definition.

And the other saving graces of WRTL-II’s appeal-to-vote test and the mandated procedures for

as-applied challenges are wholly absent from the way in which the Commission has been applydens are necessarily unconstitutional in applying the express advocacy test. If WRTL-II eschewed

context-and-proximity criteria and mandated focus on the substance of the communication in

applying its test, then the declared equivalence mandates that the same criteria be employed for

determining express advocacy. Therefore, Section 100.22(b) cannot stand.

Buckley specifically defined expressly advocating election or defeat as encouraging a vote 29

for against someone, not as encouraging actions to elect or defeat. Buckley, 424 U.S. at 44 n.52.

Substituting “actions” introduces vagueness and broadens the activity encompassed, all without

precedential authority.

WRTL-II’s appeal-to-vote test employed the term “susceptible,” 551 U.S. at 469-70 (“sus- 30

ceptible of no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a specific

candidate”), which clearly indicates that the communication at issue must only be capable of one

meaning in order to be restricted. This formulation favors liberty of expression. By contrast, “suggestive” takes the issue away from the clear meaning of the text to what a communication might

suggest. It is too vague for use in restricting First Amendment activity, where bright lines are required to protect speakers and chill would-be censors and those who would file complaints to

invoke the powers of censorship. It favors suppression of expression. “In drawing that line [between campaign advocacy and issue advocacy], the First Amendment requires us to err on the

side of protecting speech rather than suppressing it.” WRTL-II, 551 U.S. at 457.

34

Case 3:08-cv-00483-JRS Document 126 Filed 09/20/10 Page 40 of 51
ing its alternative express advocacy test. Just as it did to WRTL in WRTL II, the Commission has

sought to establish express advocacy by engaging in wide-ranging discovery into intent and effect. It has broadly employed often marginal contextual factors. It has insisted that if an issue is 31

a campaign issue it is essentially foreclosed as a communication topic for non-campaign speakers, absent FECA compliance. Both WRTL-II and Citizens foreclose such speech-chilling regulation.

Application to Ads. Applying Section 100.22(b)’s reasonable-person standard to RTAO’s

proposed Ads readily demonstrates its flaws. In opposing the first preliminary injunction motion,

FEC insisted that Change was neither express advocacy under 11 C.F.R. 100.22(b) nor a prohibited electioneering communication under 11 C.F.R. 114.15. So FEC insisted that RTAO would

not trigger the $1,000 “expenditure” threshold for PAC status under 2 U.S.C. 431(4) and the case

was nonjusticiable in part. (FEC Answer ¶¶ 22-24.) But FEC decided that Survivors was prohibited both as express advocacy (§ 100.22(b)) and an electioneering communication (§ 114.15).

(FEC Answer ¶¶ 22, 25.) Despite FEC’s position that Change was not express advocacy, this

Court decided that “it is clear that reasonable people could not differ that [Change] is promoting

the defeat of Senator Obama,” so it would be express advocacy under Section 100.22(b). (Doc.

77 at 13; see also id. at 15 n.3 (“clearly both are expressly advocating the defeat of Senator

Obama”).) Since RTAO believes both this Court and the FEC are comprised of reasonable persons, the fact that they view an ad differently readily reveals a clear problem with the test itself.

The test is badly flawed in many respects and is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, beyond

 Examples of FEC’s application of Section 100.22(b) with relevant analysis can be found 31

in James Bopp, Jr. & Richard E. Coleson, Comments of the James Madison Center for Free

Speech on Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 2007-16 (Electioneering Communications) at 15-24

(Sept. 28, 2007) (available at http://www.fec.gov/pdf/nprm/electioneering_comm/2007/

james_madison_center_for_free_speech_eccomment16.pdf).

35

Case 3:08-cv-00483-JRS Document 126 Filed 09/20/10 Page 41 of 51
statutory authority, and void.

B. FEC’s PAC-Status Policy Is Vague, Overbroad, Beyond Authority, and Void.

RTAO challenges FEC’s no-rule PAC-status enforcement policy because RTAO, as an

issue-advocacy 527, reasonably fears that it will be deemed a PAC—by FEC or a court compelling FEC to bring an enforcement action on a complaint. The policy is set out in two statements:

PAC-Status 1, 69 Fed. Reg. 68056, and PAC-Status 2, 72 Fed. Reg. 5595. PAC-Status 2 cited 11

C.F.R. §§ 100.22(b) and 100.57 as central elements of its policy, 72 Fed. Reg. at 5602-05, so the

flaws in those regulations (supra) negatively affect the policy. The major-purpose test is the third

element of the enforcement policy. See infra.

Standard of review. Strict scrutiny applies to any provision imposing PAC status. See Citizens, 130 S. Ct. at 898 (strict scrutiny applied to imposed PAC burdens); Austin, 494 U.S. 652,

658 (1990) (“must be justified by a compelling state interest”), overturned on other grounds, Citizens, 130 S. Ct. at 913; MCFL, 479 U.S. at 263 (same). The Government bears the preliminaryinjunction burden of justifying this enforcement policy. Gonzales, 546 U.S. at 429.

Unambiguously-campaign-related requirement. Buckley held that PAC-status could only

be imposed groups “under the control of a candidate or the major purpose of which is the nomination or election of a candidate” because “[t]hey are, by definition, campaign related.” 424 U.S.

at 79 (emphasis added). Leake held that the unambiguously-campaign-related requirement applies to PAC-status rules and that it mandates a narrow major-purpose test for determining PAC

status. 525 F.3d at 287-90. Consequently, the Government bears the threshold burden of demonstrating that its PAC-status policy only captures groups with Buckley’s major purpose under a

permissible interpretation of the major-purpose test.

Permissibly determining major purpose. Under Buckley’s major-purpose test, 424 U.S. at

36

Case 3:08-cv-00483-JRS Document 126 Filed 09/20/10 Page 42 of 51
79, PAC status may be determined by either an entity’s expenditures, MCFL, 479 U.S. at U.S. at

262 (major-purpose calculation looks at express-advocacy independent expenditures in relation

to total expenditures: “should MCFL’s independent spending become so extensive that the organization’s major purpose may be regarded as campaign activity, the corporation would be classified

as a political committee”); Leake, 525 F.3d at 287 (“an empirical judgment as to whether an organization primarily engages in regulable, election-related speech”), or by the organization’s central purpose revealed in its organic documents. MCFL, 249 U.S. at 252 n.6 (“MCFL[’s] . . . central organizational purpose is issue advocacy.”). Thus, the first test for major purpose requires a

comparison of the entity’s total disbursements for a year with its unambiguously-campaign-related, regulable expenditures, so that only the amount of true political “contributions” and “expenditures” would be counted. The second test requires an examination of the entity’s organic

documents to determine if there was an express intention to operate as a political committee, e.g.,

by being designated as a “separate segregated fund” (an internal “PAC”) under 2 U.S.C.

441b(2)(c). Because Buckley’s and MCFL’s major-purpose test is an authoritative construction of

the definition of “political committee,” and a constitutional limit on the application of the political committee requirements of FECA, FEC’s enforcement policy that does not comply with this

construction is beyond FEC’s statutory authority.

The Tenth Circuit agrees with the foregoing analysis:

In MCFL, the Court suggested two methods to determine an organization’s “major

purpose”: (1) examination of the organization’s central organizational purpose; or (2)

comparison of the organization’s independent spending with overall spending to determine

whether the preponderance of expenditures are for express advocacy or contributions to

candidates. 479 U.S. at 252 n. 6 (noting that MCFL’s “central organizational purpose [wa]s

issue advocacy, although it occasionally engage[d] in activities on behalf of political

candidates”); see id. at 262 (noting that “should MCFL’s independent spending become so

extensive that the organization’s major purpose may be regarded as campaign activity, the

corporation would be classified as a political committee”). Thus, under FECA, any group

37

Case 3:08-cv-00483-JRS Document 126 Filed 09/20/10 Page 43 of 51
that (1) spends more than $1,000 in a year, and (2) has as its “major purpose” the influencing of a federal election, should be considered a political committee. As a political committee, the group must adhere to certain registration, organizational, recordkeeping, reporting,

and disclosure requirements. See MCFL, 479 U.S. at 254 (“[M]ore extensive requirements

and more stringent restrictions . . . may create a disincentive for such organizations to

engage in political speech.”).

Colorado Right to Life Committee v. Coffman, 498 F.3d 1137, 1152 (10th Cir. 2007). See also

Herrera, 611 F.3d at 678 (same two methods). Leake’s requirement that major purpose be determined based on “regulable, election-related speech,” 525 F.3d at 287, would agree with the Tenth

Circuit that only “expenditures for express advocacy or contributions to candidates” would be

cognizable in calculating major purpose. Notably, Congress did not even include “electioneering

communications” as a trigger for PAC status—only “contributions” and independent “expenditures,” 2 U.S.C. 431(4), so Congress did not even assert an interest in counting electioneering

communications toward statutory PAC status. This is reasonable because, as WRTL-II makes

clear, the electioneering-communication definition sweeps in genuine issue advocacy along with

campaign speech, which could be filtered out (only in the electioneering-communication context)

by the appeal-to-vote test, 551 U.S. at 469-70, which in any event no longer plays any role in federal election law. A fortiori, if even electioneering communications may not count toward major

purpose, then non-regulable speech and activities may clearly not be counted.

The reason for such a bright line is threefold. First, groups must be easily able to determine

whether their activities put them at risk for the onerous burdens of PAC status, or else they will

be chilled by vague and overbroad standards from constitutionally protected core political

speech. Second, enforcement agencies and those who might complain to them need bright lines

to prevent selective enforcement risks and the burden of having to defend against frivolous complaints (often by political rivals for perceived advantage by partially or fully disabling an oppo38

Case 3:08-cv-00483-JRS Document 126 Filed 09/20/10 Page 44 of 51
nent). Third, if a PAC-status enforcement policy is dependent on fact-intensive investigations

based on overbroad, ambiguous criteria, the investigation itself becomes an unconstitutional burden on expressive association. Under the approved method described by MCFL and the Tenth

Circuit, supra, if an opponent complains that a group really has the major purpose of nominating

or electing candidates, the group can quickly clear itself by submitting a few, readily available

documents showing its annual expenditures and its regulable federal contributions and expenditures from which simple arithmetic will show if the regulable, campaign-related speech comprises more than fifty percent of the group’s annual expenditures. Nor can FEC argue, as it did in

MCFL, that there will be inadequate disclosure, because MCFL already decided that regular disclosure of contributions and independent expenditures supplies all of the information the government needs from groups lacking Buckley’s major purpose. 479 U.S. at 262. It is the nature of the

group, determined by the major-purpose test, that determines whether a group may be treated like

a PAC, not the amount of its contributions and independent expenditures. And that nature is determined with a proper major-purpose test. But that is not FEC’s approach, as set out in its chilling and unauthorized PAC-status enforcement policy.

FEC’s impermissible major-purpose policy. In PAC-Status 2, after having initiated a

rulemaking proceeding, FEC declared its refusal to adopt the sort of rule set out above (or any

rule) for the major-purpose test, insisting that “the major purpose doctrine . . . requires the flexibility of a case-by-case analysis of an organization’s conduct.” Id. at 5601. Instead, it set out its

vague and overbroad enforcement policy regulating major purpose, requiring FEC to engage in

“a fact intensive inquiry,” in order to weigh various vague and overbroad factors with undisclosed weight, requiring “investigations into the conduct of specific organizations that may reach

well beyond publicly available statements,” including all an organization’s “spending on Federal

39

Case 3:08-cv-00483-JRS Document 126 Filed 09/20/10 Page 45 of 51
campaign activity” (but not limited to spending on regulable activity) and other spending, and

public and non-public statements, including statements to potential donors. Id.

PAC-Status 2 also indicated that the FEC would consider other factors in its ad hoc, totalityof-the-circumstances, major-purpose test when it discussed its application of the policy to some

527 organizations in previous investigations. 72 Fed. Reg. at 5603-04. These included the fact

that an entity spent much of its money “on advertisements directed to Presidential battleground

States and direct mail attacking or expressly advocating,” id. at 5605 (emphasis added), the fact

that groups ceased activity after an election, id., and the fact that they didn’t make disbursements

in state and local races. Id. In addition, the FEC thought that it could determine a 527 group’s

major purpose from internal planning documents and budgets, id., which would normally be protected by First Amendment privacy and were only obtained because the organization was subjected to a burdensome, intrusive investigation. Major purpose was even based on a private

thank-you letter to a donor, after the donation had already been made. Id.

PAC-Status 2, therefore, sets out an enforcement policy based on an ad hoc, case-by-case,

analysis of vague and impermissible factors applied to undefined facts derived through broadranging, intrusive, and burdensome investigations (often begun when a complaint is filed by a

political or ideological rival) that, in themselves, can shut down an organization, without adequate bright lines to protect issue advocacy and issue-advocacy groups in this core First Amendment area. Because FEC’s policy goes beyond any permissible construction of the major-purpose

test, employs invalid regulations to determine whether the entity made an “expenditure,” is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, and is “in excess of the statutory . . . authority . . .” of the

FEC, it is void under 5 U.S.C. 706.

“[C]onsideration in light of Citizens. What in Citizens illumines this reconsideration? Citi40

Case 3:08-cv-00483-JRS Document 126 Filed 09/20/10 Page 46 of 51
zens forcefully repudiated FEC’s appeal-to-vote-test rule at 11 C.F.R. 114.15, see supra, which

was based on the same sort of vague and overbroad, ad-hoc approach taken by FEC in its PACstatus enforcement policy. If Section 114.15 was “precisely what WRTL sought to avoid,” Citizens, 130 S. Ct. at 896, then FEC’s PAC-status enforcement policy was precisely what Buckley

and MCFL sought to avoid. As the Fourth Circuit put it—in striking down similar vague and

overbroad standards regulating (1) communications, under a contextual, reasonable-person standard, Leake, 525 F.3d at 280-82, and (2) PACs, under a provision that “provid[es] insufficient

direction to speakers and leaving regulators free to operate without even the guidance of

discernable, neutral criteria,” id. at 290—the government “is essentially handing out speeding

tickets without ‘telling anyone . . . the speed limit,’” id. at 290 (citation omitted). Such an approach is “dangerous” to “political speech,” id., as stated next, id.:

is nowhere so dangerous as when protected political speech is involved. [The challenged

provision]’s “we’ll know it when we see it approach” simply does not provide sufficient

direction to either regulators or potentially regulated entities. Unguided regulatory discretion and the potential for regulatory abuse are the very burdens to which political speech

must never be subject.

III. RTAO Meets the Other Preliminary-Injunction Elements.

RTAO clearly has irreparable harm as a result of its chilled speech. See supra, notes 10-11

and accompanying text. Self-censorship “[i]s a harm that can be realized even without actual prosecution.” Virginia v. American Bookseller’s Ass’n, 484 U.S. 383, 393 (1988). “The loss of First

Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable

injury.” Elrod, 427 U.S. at 373; see also Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches v. England, 454

F.3d 290, 301 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (“Where a plaintiff alleges injury from a rule or regulation that

directly limits speech, the irreparable nature of the harm may be presumed.”) RTAO wants to

speak about the public policy views of an incumbent politician when public interest is focused on

41

Case 3:08-cv-00483-JRS Document 126 Filed 09/20/10 Page 47 of 51
the issue in an unusual way, so that this is the most effective time to engage in RTAO’s planned

issue advocacy. Losing such an opportunity is irreparable harm.

The balance of hardships also tips in RTAO’s favor. See supra, notes 10-11 and accompanying text. RTAO’s hardship is the irreparable loss of First Amendment rights to engage in core

political speech in the form of highly-protected issue advocacy at the most opportune time in

terms of public interest. Defendants’ interest in enforcing FEC’s regulations and policy is substantially reduced by the showing of the high probability of success on the merits. Clearly, if the

challenged provisions are unconstitutional, Defendants have no cognizable interest in enforcing

them. Moreover, there remain campaign-finance laws and regulations that will adequately protect

the government’s informational interest to the extent that they regulate only activity that meets

the unambiguously-campaign-related requirement and the derivative express-advocacy and

major-purpose tests. As another district court held recently in issuing a preliminary injunction

limiting the reach of Ohio’s “electioneering communication” law, “‘if the plaintiff shows a substantial likelihood that the challenged law is unconstitutional, no substantial harm to others can

be said to inhere to its enjoinment.’” Ohio Right to Life, No. 2:08-cv-492, slip op. at 23 (S.D. Oh.

Sep. 5, 2008) (op. and order granting prelim. inj.) (citation omitted). See also CFIF, No. 1:08-

190, slip. op. at 13 (S.D. W. Va. April 22, 2008) (Dkt. 37; mem. op. granting prelim. inj.) (“carefully tailored injunction will not unduly restrict the defendants’ power to regulate the election

process in legitimate ways”). “[F]inding these laws unconstitutional will not likely result in the

type of chaotic ‘wild west’ scenario . . . . Rather, such a finding will simply result in the dissemination of more information of precisely the kind the First Amendment was designed to protect.”

CFIF, 613 F. Supp. 2d at 807. Moreover, “It is difficult to fathom any harm to Defendants . . . as

it is simply their responsibility to enforce the law, whatever it says.” Id.

42

Case 3:08-cv-00483-JRS Document 126 Filed 09/20/10 Page 48 of 51
The public interest analysis also follows the high likelihood of success that has been shown

and favors RTAO. See supra, notes 10-11 and accompanying text. The public has an interest in

its representative government entities promulgating and enforcing constitutional regulations and

policies. It has an interest in promoting core political speech. It has a First Amendment interest in

receiving RTAO’s speech. An injunction serves these interests. “[I]ssuance of a preliminary injunction will serve the public interest because ‘it is always in the public interest to prevent violation of a party’s constitutional rights.’” Ohio Right to Life, No. 2:08-cv-492, op. at 23 (citation

omitted). “Moreover, even if the candidate Defendants do suffer some legally cognizable harm, it

pales in comparison to violating the First Amendment rights of other citizens.” CFIF, 613 F.

Supp. 2d at 807. Even where election “disruption is a concern, it is overshadowed by the necessary vindication of First Amendment rights.” Id. at 808.

IV. RTAO Is Entitled to Summary Judgment.

RTAO is entitled to summary judgment after this Court has “[re]consider[ed the denial of

the preliminary injunction] in light of Citizens.” 130 S. Ct. 2371. There are no genuine issues as

to material fact and RTAO is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(2).

RTAO has demonstrated not only that it is “likely” to succeed on the merits of its two claims but

that 11 C.F.R. 100.22(b) and FEC’s PAC-status enforcement policy are unconstitutionally vague

and overbroad, beyond statutory and constitutional authority, and void under the APA.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons a preliminary injunction should issue and no security should be

required, or it should be nominal, since the Government has no monetary stake. And after a preliminary injunction is issued, summary judgment should be granted to RTAO.

43

Case 3:08-cv-00483-JRS Document 126 Filed 09/20/10 Page 49 of 51
James Bopp, Jr.,* jboppjr@aol.com

Richard E. Coleson,* rcoleson@bopplaw.com

Barry A. Bostrom,* bbostrom@bopplaw.com

Kaylan Phillips,** kphillips@bopplaw.com

BOPP, COLESON & BOSTROM

1 South Sixth Street

Terre Haute, IN 47807-3510

812/232-2434 telephone

812/234-3685 facsimile

 *admitted pro hac vice

 **pro hac vice application pending

Lead Counsel for Plaintiff

Respectfully submitted,

/s/

Michael Boos (VA State Bar No. 37524)

Law Office of Michael Boos

4101 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 313

Fairfax, VA 22030

703/691-7717 telephone

703/691-7543 facsimile

michael.boos@gte.net

Local Counsel for Plaintiff

44

Case 3:08-cv-00483-JRS Document 126 Filed 09/20/10 Page 50 of 51
Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that on September 20, 2010, I served upon the below listed persons copies of

this document by electronically filing this document for electronic transmission.

John Richard Griffiths

U.S. Department of Justice

Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch

P.O. Box 883

Washington, DC 20044

john.griffiths@usdoj.gov

Debra Jean Prillaman

Office of U.S. Attorney

600 East Main Street, Suite 1800

Richmond, VA 23219

debra.prillaman@usdoj.gov

J. Gerald Hebert 

J. Gerald Hebert, P.C. 

5019 Waple Ln 

Alexandria, VA 22304 

ghebert@campaignlegalcenter.org

Thomasenia P. Duncan

tduncan@fec.gov

Audra Anne Hale-Maddox

ahale-maddox@fec.gov

David Kolkler. dkokler@fec.gov

Kevin Deeley, kdeeley@fec.gov

Holly Baker, hbaker@fec.gov

Vivien Clair, vclair@fec.gov

Seth Nesin, snesin@fec.gov

Adav Noti, anoti@fec.gov

Claire Rajan, crajan@fec.gov

Federal Election Commission

999 E Street NW

Washington, DC 20463

And I hereby certify that I will mail the document by U.S. mail to the following non-filing users:

Daniel R. Ortiz 

John Allan Love Professor of Law 

University of Virginia School of Law 

580 Massie Road 

Charlottesville, VA 22903-1738 

Jonathan Lee Riches

F.C.I. Williamsburg

P.O. Box 340

Salters, SC 29590

Richard Briffault 

Joseph P. Chamberlain Professor of 

 Legislation 

Columbia University School of Law 

435 West 116th Street 

New York, NY 10027 

 /s/ 

Michael Boos (VA State Bar No. 37524)

Law Office of Michael Boos

4101 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 313

Fairfax, VA 22030

703/691-7717 telephone

703/691-7543 facsimile

michael.boos@gte.net

Case 3:08-cv-00483-JRS Document 126 Filed 09/20/10 Page 51 of 51