SENATOR MITCH McCONNELL, et al.,

 Plaintiffs,

 v.

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, et al., 

 Defendants.

NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF

AMERICA, et al., 

 Plaintiffs,

 v.

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, et al., 

 Defendants.

EMILY ECHOLS, a minor child, by and

through her next friends, TIM AND WINDY

ECHOLS, et al.,

 Plaintiffs,

 v.

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, et al., 

 Defendants.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Civ. No. 02-582 (CKK, KLH, RJL)

Civ. No. 02-581 (CKK, KLH, RJL)

Civ. No. 02-633 (CKK, KLH, RJL)
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE

UNITED STATES, et al., 

 Plaintiffs,

 v.

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, et al., 

 Defendants.

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF

BROADCASTERS, 

 Plaintiff,

 v.

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, et al., 

 Defendants.

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR

AND CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL

ORGANIZATIONS, et al.,

 Plaintiffs,

 v.

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, et al., 

 Defendants.

Civ. No. 02-751 (CKK, KLH, RJL)

Civ. No. 02-753 (CKK, KLH, RJL)

Civ. No. 02-754 (CKK, KLH, RJL)
CONGRESSMAN RON PAUL, et al.,

 Plaintiffs,

 v.

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, et al., 

 Defendants.

REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE, 

et al., 

 Plaintiffs,

 v.

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, et al.

 Defendants.

CALIFORNIA DEMOCRATIC PARTY, et

al.,

 Plaintiffs,

 v.

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, et al., 

 Defendants.

Civ. No. 02-781 (CKK, KLH, RJL)

Civ. No. 02-874 (CKK, KLH, RJL)

Civ. No. 02-875 (CKK, KLH, RJL)
1

 The Three-Judge District Court was originally convened pursuant to the statutory

grants of authority found in Section 403(a)(1) of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of

2002, Pub. L. No. 107-155, 116 Stat. 81 (2002) (“BCRA”) and 28 U.S.C. § 2284. See

(continued...)

-4-

VICTORIA JACKSON GRAY ADAMS, et

al.,

 Plaintiffs,

 v.

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, et al.,

 Defendants.

REPRESENTATIVE BENNIE G.

THOMPSON, 

et al., 

 Plaintiffs,

 v.

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, et al.,

 Defendants.

Civ. No. 02-877 (CKK, KLH, RJL)

Civ. No. 02-881 (CKK, KLH, RJL)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

(May 2, 2003)

Pending before this Court are matters of confidentiality remanded to it by the ThreeJudge District Court,1 McConnell v. FEC, No. 02-582 (D.D.C. Jan. 16, 2003) (order
1

(...continued)

NRA v. FEC, No. 02-581 (D.D.C. Mar. 28, 2002) (order granting NRA Plaintiffs’

application for a three-judge district court).

2

 In certain instances, this Court has determined that the rights of non-parties to

(continued...)

-5-

remanding to a single-judge district court matters of confidentiality and the proposed Press

Intervenors’ motion to make public the full record), relating to the consolidated action

challenging as unconstitutional the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, Pub. L. No.

107-155, 116 Stat. 81 (2002) (“BCRA”). After considering both party and non-party

objections, the Three-Judge District Court’s Agreed Protective Order, McConnell v. FEC,

02-582 (D.D.C. Aug. 13, 2002) (order to permit the parties to file certain designated

documents as “Confidential” or “Counsel Only”), the Three-Judge District Court’s oral order

regarding the unsealing of protected documents, see Tr. at 387-96 (McConnell v. FEC, 02-

582 (D.D.C. Dec. 5, 2002) [hereinafter “Oral Order”] (oral order to consider unsealing

documents filed pursuant to the Agreed Protective Order)), and the applicable law, the Court

shall unseal and make public the opinions of the Three-Judge District Court and the vast

amount of information contained therein supporting the Court’s conclusions. However, the

Court will not unseal any part of the record originally filed under seal that is not contained

in the opinions.

The Order accompanying this memorandum opinion will articulate the specific

obligations of the parties. Essentially, the opinions of the Three-Judge District Court will be

disclosed in their entirety, save for several narrow exceptions.2

 In addition, the evidence
2

(...continued)

this proceeding prohibit the disclosure of the source of certain limited information cited

or quoted in my Findings of Fact and in Judge Leon’s Findings of Fact. The quotations

from documents and testimony provided by these non-parties appear in full, but the

source of this information has been characterized in such a way as to protect the entities’

identities, and the bates numbers have been redacted in a similar effort, to protect the

confidentiality rights of these non-parties. These non-parties will remain anonymous,

protecting their privacy interests, but, at the same time, the public will be permitted to

evaluate the information they have provided to the Court. This course strikes an

appropriate balance between two opposing interests.

In addition, Judge Henderson’s opinion cites to Government Defendants’

Amended Proposed Findings of Fact and Defendant Intervenors’ Proposed Findings of

Fact. These documents will be disclosed, but in certain limited situations, portions of the

findings of facts have been redacted because they implicate the same type of privacy

rights discussed in this footnote.

3

 In other words, where the citation indicates a range of page numbers, the

information within that range of pages must be disclosed; however, where the citation

indicates particular paragraph or line numbers, only the information cited within those

paragraph or line numbers need be disclosed by the parties. Where the Court quotes

evidence directly, the supporting document need not be disclosed at all, as the pertinent

information is already available to the public in the form of a quotation.

-6-

cited or quoted by the Three-Judge District Court in its opinions shall be disclosed to the

public. This evidence is highly probative to and supportive of the opinions of the ThreeJudge District Court. Accordingly, this material will be disclosed either as it appears quoted

in the Court’s opinions or, where the Court relies on a document to support a proposition, but

does not quote directly from that document, from the probative portion of the document

itself. Thus, only the portion of the cited document relied upon by the Three-Judge District

Court need be disclosed, and only to the extent indicated in the Court’s opinions.3 In

addition, the parties shall unseal those sealed portions of their briefs where the Court has

already ordered disclosure consistent with this Memorandum Opinion and the accompanying
4

 The parties also filed several exhibits under seal that contain both sealed and

unsealed material. See, e.g., DEV 130 (containing both confidential and non-confidential

material). The parties must segregate those portions that were not filed under seal and refile them with the Court as part of the public record.

-7-

Order. As a result, the parties will only be required to re-file with the Court on the public

record material relied upon by the Three-Judge District Court in its opinions.4

This Court has determined that in certain narrow instances, non-parties to this

proceeding are entitled to remain confidential under United States v. Hubbard, 650 F.2d 293

(D.C. Cir. 1980). Accordingly, certain citations in my Findings of Facts, see Findings ¶¶

1.71.3, 1.74.3, 1.78.1, and in Judge Leon’s Findings of Fact, see Findings ¶¶ 34, 238, 240,

have been redacted and the non-parties have been characterized in such a way as to protect

their privacy interests. One additional document in my Findings of Fact is cited, but is to

remain under seal. See Kollar-Kotelly’s Opinion at Findings ¶ 2.6.5.1. In addition, Judge

Henderson cites to portions of Defendants’ Amended Proposed Findings of Fact, Defs.’

Amended Proposed Findings at 20-134, 153, 192, 214-224 and 238, and Defendant

Intervenors Proposed Findings of Fact, Def. Intervenors’ Proposed Findings at 6-12, 37-38,

in her Findings of Fact. Although the parties will be required to disclose these cited pages,

the following paragraphs shall be redacted to protect the interests of non-parties under

Hubbard: Defendants’ Amended Proposed Findings of Fact at ¶¶ 95; 100; 123, lines 5, 6, and

line 7 through the identification of the sealed document; 142; 164; 676 and Defendant

Intervenors’ Proposed Findings of Fact at ¶ 27, line 11, beginning with the identification of
5

 The NRA Plaintiffs include the National Rifle Association and the National Rifle

Association Political Victory Fund.

-8-

the document, and continuing until the end of the finding. Judge Henderson, in her opinion,

has indicated in footnotes the material that is sealed with a reference to this Memorandum

Opinion. Therefore, to determine the exact portions of the record that are sealed and cited

by Judge Henderson in her opinion, this Memorandum Opinion shall govern.

I. BACKGROUND

On March 27, 2002, President George W. Bush signed BCRA into law, the first major

overhaul of the Federal Election Campaign Act (“FECA”) since the 1974 Amendments and

their revision following Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976). That very same day, NRA

Plaintiffs5

 filed suit in this Court, challenging BCRA as unconstitutional. See generally NRA

Pls.’ Compl. (NRA v. FEC, 02-581 (D.D.C. Mar. 27, 2002)). On the following day, this

Court issued an order pursuant to the statutory grants of authority in Section 403(a)(1) of

BCRA and 28 U.S.C. § 2284 granting NRA Plaintiffs’ application for a three-judge district

court. See NRA v. FEC, No. 02-581 (D.D.C. Mar. 28, 2002) (order). Between March 27,

2002, and May 27, 2002, ten other cases were filed with the Court. All of these cases,

including NRA v. FEC, No. 02-581 (D.D.C.), were consolidated with McConnell v. FEC, No.

02-582 (D.D.C. 2002), and assigned to the same Three-Judge District Court Panel.

In an effort to “expedite to the greatest possible extent the disposition” of this

consolidated action, 2 U.S.C. § 437h(a)(4) (note); BCRA § 403(a)(4), on August 13, 2002,
-9-

the Three-Judge District Court signed an Agreed to Protective Order. McConnell v. FEC,

02-582 (D.D.C. Aug. 13, 2002) [hereinafter “Agreed Protective Order”] (order). The Order

permitted the parties to exchange documents during discovery and file certain designated

documents with the Court as “Confidential” or “Counsel Only,” Agreed Protective Order ¶¶

2-7, thereby avoiding prolonged wrangling over discovery requests. The Three-Judge

District Court, however, retained discretion to review and modify the Agreed Protective

Order. Id. ¶ 11 (“All Confidential Information that is filed with the Court . . . shall be filed

under seal and kept under seal until further order of the Court.”) (emphasis added); id. ¶ 12

(“This Order shall not preclude any party from seeking a ruling from the Court regarding the

validity or propriety of any claim of confidentiality asserted by the producing entity.”); id.

¶ 13 (“Nothing in this Order shall prevent or in any way limit or impair the right of counsel

for the parties to file a motion to unseal portions of the record for purposes of this

litigation.”); id. ¶ 25 (“Notwithstanding anything to the contrary that may be set forth herein,

the parties understand that the Court shall retain the authority to modify this Order upon good

cause shown.”).

On December 5, 2002, the Three-Judge District Court orally notified the parties at the

oral argument of its intention to unseal the entire record, see Tr. at 387-96, unless specific

written objections were filed with the Court delineating the “legal basis” in support of

keeping designated portions of the record sealed. Id. at 396 (Kollar-Kotelly, J.). Such

objections were expected to be consistent with the “stringent” presumption of disclosure. Id.
-10-

at 396 (Kollar-Kotelly, J.). Counsel for the litigants were directed to notify third parties of

the Three-Judge District Court’s intention to unseal the record as the parties would be better

able to identify them than the Court; particularly given the voluminous record confronting

the Court and the expedited nature of the proceedings. See id. at 387-96. Following the Oral

Order, on January 16, 2003, the Three-Judge District Court issued an order remanding all

matters of confidentiality to this Court. McConnell v. FEC, No. 02-582 (D.D.C. Jan. 16,

2003) (order remanding to a single-judge district court matters of confidentiality and the

proposed Press Intervenors’ motion to make public the full record). Accordingly, this Court

is vested with the authority to rule on all objections to unseal the record filed with the ThreeJudge District Court.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

In Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978), the Supreme Court

recognized a common law right to view court documents. Nixon, 435 U.S. at 597 (“It is clear

that the courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy public records and

documents, including judicial records and documents.”). However, the right of access is far

from absolute. See id. at 598 (listing various exceptions to the general rule of openness).

Moreover, Nixon observed that the decision as to access “is one best left to the sound

discretion of the trial court.” Id. at 599. This discretion should be “exercised in light of the

relevant facts and circumstances of the particular case.” Id. Although much of the available

case law on the subject of openness arises in the criminal context, the “presumption of
-11-

openness” applies in the civil context as well. See Johnson v. Greater Southeast Cmty.

Hosp., 951 F.2d 1268, 1277 (D.C. Cir. 1991). At least in the criminal context, this

“presumption of openness may be overcome only by an overriding interest based on findings

that closure is essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that

interest.” Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of California, 464 U.S. 501, 510 (1984).

The D.C. Circuit gave form to the common law right to access in United States v.

Hubbard, 650 F.2d 293 (D.C. Cir. 1980), which established a six-part balancing test. See

Hubbard, 650 F.2d at 317-22. As restated in Johnson v. Greater Southeast Community

Hospital, 951 F.2d 1268 (D.C. Cir. 1991), these six factors include:

(1) the need for public access to the documents at issue; (2) the extent to which

the public had access to the documents prior to the sealing order; (3) the fact

that a party has objected to disclosure and the identity of that party; (4) the

strength of the property and privacy interests involved; (5) the possibility of

prejudice to those opposing disclosure; and (6) the purposes for which the

documents were introduced. 

Johnson, 951 F.2d at 1277 (citing Hubbard, 650 F.2d at 317-22). Hubbard also recognized

that “where both the public interest in access and the private interest in non-disclosure are

strong, partial or redacted disclosure [may] satisfy both interests.” Hubbard, 650 F.2d at

324-25. It is pursuant to this framework that the Court must analyze the various objections

registered by each party. In doing so, the Court exercises the broad discretion it is provided

under the law.

III. DISCUSSION

Pursuant to the Three-Judge District Court’s December 5, 2002, Oral Order, the
6

 For example, the ACLU Plaintiffs did not file any objections with the Court; the

Adams Plaintiffs filed a submission with the Court waiving their objections, see Adams

Pls.’ Supp. Submission Regarding the Status of Docs. Filed Under Seal at 1; the NRA

Plaintiffs only objected to the disclosure of personal information, like bank account and

credit card numbers, see NRA Pls.’ Objections to Lifting Confidentiality Designations

with Respect to Sensitive Financial Information at 1-2; and the RNC Plaintiffs carefully

inventoried each document that they requested to remain under seal along with the

general legal arguments supporting each claim, see generally RNC Pls.’ Objections to the

Unsealing of Certain Docs. On the other hand, Government Defendants “oppose[d] the

wholesale unsealing of the record.” Mot. of DOJ and FEC to Maintain Certain Portions

of the Record Under Seal at 1. Moreover, several Plaintiffs requested that the vast

majority of the documents they filed with the Court remain under seal. See Mot. of

NRTWC to Maintain Docs. Under Seal at 1; Objections to Unsealing Confidential Docs.

by Pls. NRLC and CFG at 2-3.

-12-

parties and non-parties to the consolidated action were put on notice that all documents

subject to the Agreed Protective Order would be unsealed, unless specific objections were

raised. See Tr. at 387-96. As a preliminary matter, it should be noted that the level of

specificity in the objections filed by both parties and non-parties in the eleven consolidated

cases ranges widely.6

 Moreover, the sheer volume of the documents filed with the Court –

some 100,000 pages by the Court’s own conservative estimation – further complicates this

matter. Faced with these challenges, the Court has decided that the most prudent course is

to begin with (A) a careful examination of the Agreed Protective Order, followed by (B) a

close analysis of the objections raised under 2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(12)(A), and finally, (C) a

review of the common law right of access to judicial proceedings. The Court will then

consider (D) each party’s objections to the common law right of access in turn, based on its

status as (1) a party or (2) a non-party to these proceedings.
-13-

A. The Agreed Protective Order

As noted above, the Court retained considerable discretion to modify and unseal the

record under the Agreed Protective Order. The Order, by its clear and plain terms, puts both

parties and non-parties, alike, on notice: “Notwithstanding anything to the contrary that may

be set forth herein, the parties understand that the Court shall retain the authority to modify

this Order upon good cause shown.” Agreed Protective Order ¶ 25.

Despite the patent terms of the Order, many of the parties contend that the Court

should not compel the disclosure of documents filed under seal. See, e.g., Mot. of NRTWC

to Maintain Docs. Under Seal at 4-5 (contending that NRTWC’s reliance on the Agreed

Protective Order precludes disclosure of certain documents). With regard to Plaintiffs, the

Court finds this argument, by itself, without merit. Plaintiffs willfully challenged the

constitutionality of BCRA and placed evidence before this Court to adjudicate their claims.

Moreover, as litigants in this case, they should have been well-aware of the terms of the

Agreed Protective Order. While the terms of the Agreed Protective Order, alone, do not

compel the disclosure of sealed documents, its terms are certainly not a barrier to disclosure.

At the same time, the binding law of this circuit, handed down, inter alia, in Hubbard,

requires the Court to consider the nature of each document, mindful of “this country’s strong

tradition of access to judicial proceedings.” Hubbard, 650 F.2d at 317 n.89.

Indeed, in Proctor & Gamble Co. v. Bankers Trust Co., 78 F.3d 219 (6th Cir. 1996),

the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit admonished a district court for failing to review
-14-

the nature of documents filed under an agreed protective order. Proctor & Gamble, 78 F.3d

at 222, 227. The Sixth Circuit observed that under the agreed protective order, “[t]he parties

and not the court” were determining which documents would remain under seal, id., contrary

to the “long-established legal tradition which values public access to court proceedings,” id.

at 227 (internal quotation marks omitted). Consequently, the Sixth Circuit vacated the

protective order, explaining that a “District Court cannot abdicate itsresponsibility to oversee

the discovery process and determine whether filings should be made available to the public.”

Id.

This Court is left to conclude that Plaintiffs’ claims of reliance on the Agreed

Protective Order are without merit. Under their logic, each litigant would be free to decide

for the Court what information is or is not confidential. Such a conclusion would defy the

principles laid down in Nixon v. Warner and is contrary to the Court’s prerogative explicitly

stated in the Agreed Protective Order.

On the other hand, the Court is sensitive to the unique concerns of non-parties to this

litigation. Although the terms of the Agreed Protective Order are no less plain when read by

a non-party, these individuals or entities were brought into this proceeding by the parties to

provide evidence – acquired, it appears, based on assurances of confidentiality – and clearly

have a greater privacy interest than those here by their own volition. The status of nonparties, alone, does not shield their objections from review by the Court under the principles

laid down in Hubbard; however, the Court is cognizant of their unique interests and rights.
7

 The AFL-CIO Plaintiffs include the American Federation of Labor and the

Congress of Industrial Organizations and the AFL-CIO Committee on Political Education

Political Contributions Committee.

8

 The Chamber of Commerce Plaintiffs include: the Chamber of Commerce of the

United States, the U.S. Chamber Political Action Committee, the National Association of

Manufacturers, and the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors.

9

 The McConnell Plaintiffs that joined in filing the Joint Statement include:

Associated Builders and Contractors and Associated Builder and Contractors Political

Action Committee.

-15-

B. 2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(12)(A) Objections

Various parties – namely the AFL-CIO Plaintiffs,7 Chamber of Commerce Plaintiffs,8

several McConnell Plaintiffs,9 and the FEC Defendant – object to the disclosure of certain

documents, purported to fall under the auspices of 2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(12)(A). Joint

Statement Regarding Confidentiality of 2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(12)(A) Materials by Pls. AFLCIO, Chamber of Commerce and Other Pls. and Def. FEC at 4 [hereinafter “Joint

Statement”]. According to these parties, certain contested documents “constitute part of the

non-public administrative record in a closed FEC enforcement proceeding, Matters Under

Review (“MURs”) 4291, et. al., and are subject to the decision in AFL-CIO v. FEC, 177 F.

Supp. 2d 48 (D.D.C. 2001).” Id. at 1. In AFL-CIO v. FEC, Judge Gladys Kessler held that

the disclosure of investigative files at the conclusion of an administrative enforcement

proceeding was “arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law.” AFL-CIO, 177 F. Supp. 2d at

59-62. As a result, the FEC was prohibited from disclosing information directly from its

investigative files to the public. Therefore, Plaintiffs argue that this Court is precluded from
10 In order for Plaintiffs and Defendant to prevail on this argument, they must

demonstrate that the disclosure of documents in this case would violate Section

437g(a)(12)(A).

-16-

releasing the contents of the same investigative files in this proceeding.10

The plain language of Section 437g(a)(12)(A) prohibits the FEC from disclosing

information from its investigative files, developed during an administrative enforcement

proceeding. Specifically, the statute states:

Any notification or investigation made under this section shall not be made

public by the Commission or by any person without the written consent of the

person receiving such notification or the person with respect to whom such

investigation is made.

2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(12)(A). Section 437g(a)(12)(A) is implemented by 11 C.F.R. §

111.21(a), which provides that:

Except as provided in 11 CFR 111.20, no complaint filed with the

Commission, nor any notification sent by the Commission, nor any

investigation conducted by the Commission, nor any findings made by the

Commission shall be made public by the Commission or by any person or

entity without the written consent of the respondent with respect to whom the

complaint was filed, the notification sent, the investigation conducted, or the

finding made. 

11 C.F.R. § 111.21(a). In In re Sealed Case, the D.C. Circuit held that “both 2 U.S.C. §

437g(a)(12)(A) and 11 C.F.R. § 111.21(a) plainly prohibit the FEC from disclosing

information concerning ongoing investigations under any circumstances without the written

consent of the subject of the investigation.” In re Sealed Case, 237 F.3d 657, 666-67 (D.C.

Cir. 2001). Moreover, in AFL-CIO, Judge Kessler determined that Section 437g(a)(12)(A)’s
-17-

protections do not lapse once an investigation ends. AFL-CIO, 177 F. Supp. 2d at 56.

According to Judge Kessler’s opinion, the privacy interest of an innocent accused actually

strengthens the need for confidentiality. Id.

The facts of this proceeding, however, are readily distinguishable from both In re

Sealed Case and AFL-CIO. Plaintiffs’ purported Section 437g(a)(12)(A) documents can be

divided into two categories: (1) documents filed with the Court by AFL-CIO Plaintiffs, Joint

Statement at 3, and (2) documents filed with the Court by Chamber of Commerce, National

Association of Manufacturers, and Associated Builders and Contractors Plaintiffs

(collectively, “Coalition Plaintiffs”), id. at 4-5. Both sets of documents filed with the Court

were also filed with the FEC during an administrative enforcement action. With regard to

the first category of documents, “the AFL-CIO agreed to identify documents in the record

of MURs 4291, et al., . . . that were responsive to defendants’ discovery requests . . . and

provide them to the defendants under . . . the Agreed Protective Order.” Id. at 3. In the Joint

Statement, AFL-CIO Plaintiffs state that these documents were produced from AFL-CIO

files and “recopied and provided to the FEC” for this litigation. Id. at 3-4. The second set

of documents, involving Coalition Plaintiffs, were produced in a slightly different fashion.

Rather than recopy documents from their own files, Coalition Plaintiffs “stipulated to a

procedure that allowed counsel for defendants to review and use documents in the FEC’s

files” for this litigation. Id. at 5. According to the discovery stipulation, Coalition Plaintiffs

“agree[d] to make [documents in the FEC’s files] available to the Commission for use in
-18-

[this] litigation as if they had been produced by the Client [Coalition Plaintiffs] in response

to [discovery] Requests.” Praecipe Filing Discovery Stipulation at 2 [hereinafter “Discovery

Stipulation”] (emphasis added). Under the process agreed to by the parties, FEC Defendant

first produced the documents from its investigative files, then these documents were

delivered to Coalition Plaintiffs for review, and finally, the documents were copied for use

in this litigation and tendered to the FEC in response to its discovery requests. See id. at 2-3.

As alluded to above, in both In re Sealed Case and AFL-CIO, the FEC attempted to

disclose information contained in FEC files that it had gathered as part of an administrative

enforcement action under FECA. See In re Sealed Case, 237 F.3d at 662-63; AFL-CIO, 177

F. Supp. 2d at 52-55. Both courts concluded that the FEC was prohibited from disclosing

this information from the FEC files to the public. In re Sealed Case, 237 F.3d at 666-67;

AFL-CIO, 177 F. Supp. 2d at 56. Here, however, the FEC received documents deemed

pertinent to its discovery requests for use in this litigation. 

As noted above, the documents provided by AFL-CIO Plaintiffs had already been

tendered to the FEC during an investigative proceeding. In the course of this litigation,

however, AFL-CIO Plaintiffs reproduced these documents from their own files and turned

them over to FEC Defendant anew, in response to discovery requests. As a result, the

documents produced for this proceeding did not come directly from an FEC investigative

file, but rather from AFL-CIO Plaintiffs’ files. As for the second set of documents, while

these documents originally came from a FEC investigative file, they were returned to
-19-

Coalition Plaintiffs – consistent with the statute – where they were reviewed, copied, and

returned to FEC Defendant “as if they had been produced by the [Coalition Plaintiffs] in

response to [discovery] Requests.” Discovery Stipulation at 2. By reviewing and returning

the documents as if disclosing documents from their own files, Coalition Plaintiffs’ Section

437g(a)(12)(A) claims were vitiated. 

Coalition Plaintiffs were, of course, entitled to review the portions of the FEC’s files

that they originally supplied as the result of an administrative enforcement proceeding. By

reviewing and copying those documents, however, and then returning them to FEC

Defendant in response to a discovery request in this litigation, the documents no longer fall

under the protections afforded by Section 437g(a)(12)(A). Defendant FEC did not seek the

returned-documents as the result of a FECA enforcement proceeding, rather these documents

were requested during discovery in a civil trial initiated by Coalition Plaintiffs.

In fact, the FEC was explicitly prohibited from opening its investigative files in

response to discovery requests by parties not related to the particular information requested.

See McConnell v. FEC, No. 02-582 at 4-5 (D.D.C. Aug. 12, 2002) [hereinafter “August 13,

2002, Order”] (order denying the FEC a protective order that would allow it to disclose to

certain parties the entire investigative files of approximately 61 pending or closed FEC

administrative enforcement proceedings). The Three-Judge District Court recognized the

“sensitive nature of the documents” and observed that “less intrusive alternatives to

disclosing the files” existed rather than permitting the diverse interests to this case to
-20-

“rummage” through these files. Id. at 10. In a footnote, the Three-Judge District Court noted

that the Plaintiffs, in fact, had suggested one such alternative:

Insofar as any plaintiff happens to be an investigated party in one of the FEC’s

ongoing or closed investigations, that plaintiff and the Commission have equal

access to the documents provided in the investigation by that party, and either

can seek to reach an accommodation with the other about the use of any such

document here. Or, the FEC can, through discovery requests or third party

subpoenas – appropriately tailored under Rule 26 or Rule 45 to the issues in

the case at bar – obtain the documents anew, with the parties so targeted for

discovery cognizant of the effort and able to protect their legal interests.

Id. at 10 n.5 (quoting Pls.’ Opp’n at 5). As a result of the August 13, 2002, Order, the FEC

could not produce information it had acquired from an ongoing or closed enforcement

proceeding directly from its files in violation of Section 437g(a)(12)(A). Although the

documents at issue here were part of an FEC investigative file, the FEC was not precluded

from requesting the same documents directly from the parties or devising an agreement,

consistent with Section 437g(a)(12)(A), whereby the information in the files could be used

in this proceeding as if produced by the party. See id. Indeed, the August 13, 2002, Order

made it clear that the FEC could not introduce documents in such a way that would implicate

Section 437g(a)(12)(A). Consequently, by denying Defendant FEC’s request for a special,

Section 437g(a)(12)(A) protective order in toto and prohibiting the parties from implicating

Section 437g(a)(12)(A), the Three-Judge District Court essentially limited the confidentiality

of all the documents produced in this litigation to the same disclosure protections afforded

by the general Agreed Protective Order.

The fact that Coalition Plaintiffs stipulated that the disclosure of this information did
11 Judge Kessler rejected this line of reasoning in AFL-CIO. In that case, the

defendant FEC argued “that if § 437g(a)(12)(A) remains in effect after an investigation

ends, any district court action pertaining thereto would have to remain sealed, leading to a

body of secret case law.” AFL-CIO, 177 F. Supp. 2d at 63. In dismissing this argument,

but holding that Section 437g(a)(12)(A) precludes the FEC from disclosing its

investigative files sua sponte, Judge Kessler noted the example of a Section 437g(a)(6)

lawsuit:

(continued...)

-21-

not constitute a “waiver of any protection afforded under §437g of FECA” is inapposite.

Discovery Stipulation at 3. As the Court has demonstrated, the documents proffered by

Coalition Plaintiffs and returned to the FEC are entitled to no protection under Section

437g(a)(12)(A). The waiver provision means that by tendering these documents to the FEC

as the result of a discovery request, Coalition Plaintiffs’ actions did not constitute a waiver

of their statutory protections afforded under Section 437g(a)(12)(A) for release in other

contexts. Accordingly, the FEC is still precluded from releasing these and other documents

directly from its investigative files or using these documents, tendered during discovery, for

purposes other than this litigation.

Under the logic expounded in the Joint Statement, the protections accorded by Section

437g(a)(12)(A) would extend beyond the clear language of the statute. According to the

parties, once a document became part of an FEC investigative file, the original document,

still in the possession of the party being investigated, would be forever shielded from

disclosure, even where that document was responsive to a discovery request and obtained

anew in a separate judicial proceeding.11 This argument is unpersuasive. Section
11(...continued)

With respect to the FEC’s enforcement proceedings under § 437g(a)(6), the

district court does not review the investigative file or the certified

administrative record; in fact, there is no requirement that the administrative

record even be filed with the district court. A § 437g(a)(6) lawsuit is a separate

and independent proceeding that seeks to establish that a former respondent in

an FEC administrative proceeding has violated FECA. It involves no review

of either the underlying FEC investigation or the FEC’s administrative

enforcement decision, but instead requires fresh discovery and a determination

of the facts de novo. Therefore, § 437g(a)(12)(A) has no effect on the ability

of the FEC to prosecute these cases and no bearing on whether any decision

would have to be sealed.

Id. (emphasis added). Although a Section 437g(a)(6) lawsuit would likely involve many of

the same documents contained within the FEC’s investigative files, Judge Kessler rejects the

notion that Section 437g(a)(12)(A) eternally shields these documents from disclosure where

they are obtained anew and used in a separate judicial proceeding.

-22-

437g(a)(12)(A) clearly prohibits the Commission or any person from disclosing “[a]ny

notification or investigation made under [Section 437] . . . without the written consent of the

person receiving such notification or the person with respect to whom such investigation is

made.” § 437g(a)(12)(A). It does not, however, permanently transform the nature of an

individual or entity’s documents kept in its files merely because those documents also happen

to be included in a FEC investigative file. Such documents – for example, political or

organizational documents – do not necessarily reveal information about the nature of the FEC

enforcement action, such as the complaints that launched the investigation or the

Commission’s internal deliberations, and unlike documents subpoenaed in an enforcement

action, such documents are not being used by the FEC to prosecute an individual or entity
12 When the FEC initiates an administrative enforcement proceeding, the individual

or entity that is being investigated has no say in the matter. No doubt, most, if not all,

parties investigated by the FEC have been forced to produce documents against their will. 

Section 437g(a)(12)(A) precludes the FEC from releasing these documents to the public

or using them for any other purpose, without the express consent of the party that

provided them. However, when an individual or entity, which also happens to have been

investigated by the FEC, initiates a lawsuit, that party has made the voluntary decision to

file a suit in a court of law. Any documents that the party must produce during the course

of that litigation stem directly from the volitional act of filing a lawsuit, provided that the

documents were introduced as the result of discovery and not obtained in violation of

Section 437g(a)(12)(A).

13 As noted above, some of the documents produced in this action were also

implicated in AFL-CIO v. FEC, 177 F. Supp. 2d 48 (D.D.C. 2001). That case is currently

on appeal to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Case No. 02-5069

(D.C. Cir.). Only six of the documents at issue in AFL-CIO were actually quoted or cited

by the Three-Judge District Court in this proceeding, and only the quoted or cited portions

are being made available to the public by this Court. As a result, this Court’s decision to

unseal documents in this litigation will not affect the status of the vast number of

documents subject to the D.C. Circuit’s decision in AFL-CIO. Moreover, three of the six

documents recount or describe advertisements that AFL-CIO Plaintiffs broadcasted on the

public airwaves during the 1996 election cycle, and therefore, do not involve politically

sensitive materials. Of the remaining three documents, one contains information about a

(continued...)

-23-

under FECA.12

The Plaintiffs in this action chose to litigate with the understanding that they could be

required to produce documents in response to discovery requests, and that such documents

could potentially become a part of the judicial record, where there is a “strong tradition of

[public] access.” Hubbard, 650 F.2d at 317 n.89. The documents at issue here may be

protected under Hubbard, but they are not subject Section 437g(a)(12)(A). The statute has

not been implicated because these documents were deemed to have been produced by the

parties directly for this litigation and not by the FEC from its investigative files.13
13(...continued)

survey conducted in 1996, the second concerns “issue” advocacy and recommends

various political consultants (only the quoted portion of this document is being disclosed),

and the third suggests that the AFL-CIO should run “issue” advocacy in a particularly

close election race. See infra Discussion at 32. 

-24-

C. The Common Law Right of Access to Judicial Proceedings

Many of the parties and non-parties to this litigation object to the disclosure of certain

documents filed with the Court under seal. While this country has a “strong tradition of

access to judicial proceedings,” id., the right of access is far from absolute, Nixon, 435 U.S.

at 598. Indeed, the D.C. Circuit has stated: “not all documents filed with courts fall within

[the common law right of access’s] purview – at least, not in this circuit.” United States v.

El-Sayegh, 131 F.3d 158, 161 (D.C. Cir. 1997). “[W]hat makes a document a judicial record

and subjects it to the common law right of access is the role it plays in the adjudicatory

process.” Id. at 163; accord EEOC v. National Children’s Center, 98 F.3d 1406, 1409 (D.C.

Cir. 1996) (“A court’s decrees, its judgments, its orders, are the quintessential business of the

public’s institutions.”).

The Court is therefore vested with considerable discretion, see, e.g., Nixon, 435 U.S.

at 599, but must exercise that discretion within the confines of this circuit’s law. Therefore,

“in light of the relevant facts and circumstances” of this case, Hubbard, 650 F.2d at 317,

more fully explained below, the Court is convinced that because “both the public interest in

access and the private interest in non-disclosure are strong,” partial disclosure is the best

means to satisfy both the public and the parties’ interests, id. at 324-25. Consequently, this
14 The Three-Judge District Court quotes extensively from the record in its various

findings of facts and opinions. As a result, where the Three-Judge District Court quotes

directly from the record, that portion of the record will be available to the public as it

appears in the opinion, in the form of a quotation. However, where the Three-Judge

District Court cites to the record to support a proposition, but does not quote the record

directly, a physical copy of the cited portion of the record will be made available to the

public. It should also be noted, however, that in several instances, where this Court

deemed a third party’s interests particularly compelling, the source of that information has

been redacted from the opinion to protect the confidentiality of the non-party. If not cited

in the opinions, and if not sealed in the opinions or the Order accompanying this

Memorandum Opinion, then the rest of the record originally filed under seal remains

sealed.

-25-

Court will make the Three-Judge District Court’s opinions available to the public.

14 The

sheer number of documents filed with the court, and their sensitive nature, preclude a blanket

disclosure order. It is the opinion of the Court, however, that the quoted and cited material,

which by their nature are both narrowly tailored to protect the confidentiality interests of the

parties and non-parties and are probative to the outcome of this adjudication, will permit the

public to follow the arguments, issues, and outcome of this litigation. The Court must now

exercise its discretion and proceed to analyze each party and non-party’s objections,

categorized and carefully considered under Hubbard.

D. Application of the Hubbard Test

(1) Party Objections or Waivers

Hubbard requires the Court to consider the identity of each party that raises an

objection. Hubbard, 650 F.2d at 319. As a result, the Court has divided its inquiry into two

broad categories: (1) objections raised by parties and (2) objections raised by non-parties to
15 The McConnell Plaintiffs include: Senator Mitch McConnell, Representative

Bob Barr, Representative Mike Pence, Alabama Attorney General William H. Pryor, the

Libertarian National Committee, Inc., the American Civil Liberties Union, Associated

Builders and Contractors, Inc., Associated Builders and Contractors Political Action

Committee, the Center for Individual Freedom, Club for Growth, Inc., Indiana Family

Institute, Inc., the National Right to Life Committee, Inc., National Right to Life

Educational Trust Fund, National Right to Life Political Action Committee, the National

Right to Work Committee, 60 Plus Association, Inc., Southeastern Legal Foundation,

Inc., U.S. d/b/a ProEnglish, Thomas McInerney, Barret Austin O'Brock and Trevor M.

Southerland. 

-26-

these proceedings. It should be noted from the outset, however, that litigants to this

proceeding have a lesser claim to privacy than third parties; that is, Plaintiffs affirmatively

presented evidence to the Three-Judge District Court in order to obtain an adjudication on

the merits of their claims. 

(a) McConnell Plaintiffs15

Of the twenty-one individuals and organizations that comprise the McConnell

Plaintiffs, only seven have filed objections to the Three-Judge District Court’s Oral Order:

the Associated Builders and Contractors (“ABC”), Joint Statement at 1, the ABC Political

Action Committee (“ABC PAC”), id., the National Right to Work Committee (“NRTWC”),

Mot. of NRTWC to Maintain Docs. Under Seal at 1, the National Right to Life Committee

(“NRLC”), Objections to Unsealing Confidential Docs. by Pls. NRLC and CFG at 1, the

National Right to Life Education Trust Fund (“NRL Education Trust Fund”), id., the Nation

Right to Life Political Action Committee (“NRL-PAC”), id., and the Club for Growth

(“CFG”), id. As a result, the remaining McConnell Plaintiffs have waived any objections to
16 Because these contested documents were also objected to by Chamber of

Commerce Plaintiffs, the Court will entertain ABC and ABC PAC’s objections with

Chamber of Commerce Plaintiffs. See infra Discussion at 28-29.

-27-

this Court’s order to unseal portions of the record. 

The objections filed by these seven McConnell Plaintiffs can be divided into two

categories: (1) Section 437g(a)(12)(A) and (2) general Hubbard objections. The Court has

already indicated, however, that it finds Plaintiffs ABC and ABC PAC’s Section

437g(a)(12)(A) arguments unpersuasive. See supra Discussion at 14-22. As a result, the

Court will consider ABC and ABC PAC’s Section 437g(a)(12)(A) objections under

Hubbard.

16

NRLC, NRL Education Trust Fund, NRL-PAC and CFG Plaintiffs (collectively,

“NRLC and CFG Plaintiffs”) object to the disclosure of all but eight documents filed with

the Court. See Objections to Unsealing Confidential Docs. by Pls.’ NRLC and CFG at 2-3.

In addition, NRLC and CFG Plaintiffs continue to object to the disclosure of the confidential

portions of NRLC Executive Director Dr. David O’Steen and CFG Executive Director David

Keating’s depositions. See id. at 2.

The Three-Judge District Court does not cite to any documents contested by NRLC

Plaintiffs. The only contested material relied upon by the Three-Judge District Court in its

opinions consists of a portion of Keating’s deposition, see Keating Dep. at 59 (Quoted,

Kollar-Kotelly’s Opinion at Findings ¶ 2.6.6.3; Leon’s Op. at Findings ¶ 308), which appears

in the form of a quotation in Judge Kollar-Kotelly’s Findings of Fact, and a citation to
-28-

minutes of The Club for Growth’s Board Meeting (Cited, Kollar-Kotelly’s Opinion at

Findings ¶ 2.6.5.1). The contested portion of the deposition clearly does not satisfy the

stringent test under Hubbard. The quoted portion of Keating’s deposition does not allude

to sensitive political information or disclose any political “trade secrets,” and this material

has been deemed probative to the disposition of the Three-Judge District Court’s

adjudication. Accordingly, this Court will order the disclosure of this quotation as it appears

in my Findings of Fact. As for the minutes of the Board Meeting, since I do not quote from

this document and only provide a citation to the document in the record, I will keep the

document under seal. Applying Hubbard, I conclude that since the Board’s minutes are not

widely disseminated and since CFG expressed a strong privacy interest in the document, the

minutes shall remain under seal. In this case, the private interests in keeping the Board’s

minutes confidential outweighs the clear, probative value of the information contained

therein.

NRTWC Plaintiff seeks to maintain the confidentiality of all of the documents that

it originally filed under seal. Mot. of NRTWC to Maintain Docs. Under Seal at 1. Of these

documents, however, only one is quoted in my and Judge Leon’s Findings of Fact: the

document beginning at NRW-02812 (Quoted, Kollar-Kotelly’s Opinion at Findings ¶ 1.85.5

(NRW 02812); Leon’s Opinion at Findings ¶¶ 184, 303 (NRW 02812, 02814)). The

confidentiality of this document, a fundraising letter mailed to a potential NRTWC

contributor, cannot be maintained under the standards expounded in Hubbard. Although
17 See supra note 5.

-29-

fundraising letters of this sort are not mailed to the general public, they are nonetheless

solicitations for contributions. This document is not an internal memorandum, it does not

contain “sensitive political information,” and it does not proffer “trade secrets.” As a result,

the portion of this letter quoted in my Findings of Fact will be disclosed to the public.

(b) NRA Plaintiffs17

NRA Plaintiffs only object to the disclosure of “sensitive financial information.”

Objections of the NRA and PVF to Lifting the Confidentiality Designations with Respect to

Sensitive Financial Information at 1. As a result, NRA Plaintiffs have waived their

objections to the disclosure of all documents filed with the Court, save the objected to

financial information. See id.

Undoubtedly, litigation regarding the regulation of our campaign finance system will

involve money. In many instances, the parties filed documents with the Court that contained

sensitive third-party financial information, including bank account and credit card numbers.

Because there is no public interest in the release of such information, and given the real and

substantial harm that would result from the disclosure of this information, all parties,

including NRA Plaintiffs, will be permitted to redact sensitive financial information,

including, but not necessarily limited to, credit card and bank account numbers. This, of

course, does not include, inter alia, budget figures, account balances, or contribution

amounts cited or quoted by the Three-Judge District Court in their opinions. In such
18 The Echols Plaintiffs are Emily Echols, Hannah McDow, Isaac McDow, Jessica

Mitchell, Daniel Solid and Zachary C. White.

19 See supra note 8.

-30-

instances, the Three-Judge District Court has determined that this information, contained in

its decision, is probative evidence. 

(c) Echols Plaintiffs18

Echols Plaintiffs did not file any objections to the Three-Judge District Court’s Oral

Order and have thereby waived any objection to this Court’s order to unseal portions of the

record.

(d) Chamber of Commerce Plaintiffs19

PlaintiffsChamber of Commerce (“COC”) and National Association of Manufacturers

(“NAM”) joined in filing the Joint Statement, which voiced their objection to the disclosure

of alleged Section 437g(a)(12)(A) materials. Joint Statement at 1. Chamber of Commerce

Plaintiffs, however, did not file any independent objections with the Court. Consequently,

aside from the objections raised in the Joint Statement, Chamber of Commerce Plaintiffs

have waived any objection to the Court’s order to unseal portions of the record. Of the

remaining Section 437g(a)(12)(A) documents, which failed to implicate the protections

afforded by that statute, see supra Discussion at 14-22, the Court will analyze the merits of

their confidentiality claims under Hubbard, along with the claims asserted by ABC and ABC

PAC, see supra note 16.

After a careful review of the documents contested by Plaintiffs COC, NAM, ABC,
20 Specifically, the Three-Judge District Court only cites twelve such documents:

(1) TC 00698 (Quoted, Kollar-Kotelly’s Opinion at Findings ¶ 2.6.2.2; Leon’s Opinion at

Findings ¶ 300), (2) AV 0024-40 (Cited, Kollar-Kotelly’s Opinion at Findings ¶ 2.6.2.2;

Leon’s Opinion at Findings ¶ 300), (3) AV 0046-47 (Cited, Kollar-Kotelly’s Opinion at

Findings ¶ 2.6.2.2), (4) AV 0060-64 (Cited, Kollar-Kotelly’s Opinion at Findings ¶

2.6.2.2), (5) AV 0106-18 (Cited, Kollar-Kotelly’s Opinion at Findings ¶ 2.6.2.2), (6) AV

0139-41 (Cited, Kollar-Kotelly’s Opinion at Findings ¶ 2.6.2.2; Leon’s Opinion at

Findings ¶ 300), (7) TC 00513-37 (Cited, Kollar-Kotelly’s Opinion at Findings ¶ 2.6.2.2;

Leon’s Opinion at Findings ¶ 300), (8) NAW 0002, 0005 (Cited, Kollar-Kotelly’s

Opinion at Findings ¶ 2.6.2.2; Leon’s Opinion at Findings ¶ 300), (9) TC 00662-63

(Cited, Kollar-Kotelly’s Opinion at Findings ¶ 2.6.2.2), (10) NAM 0206-27 (Cited,

Kollar-Kotelly’s Opinion at Findings ¶ 2.6.2.2; Leon’s Opinion at Findings ¶ 300), (11)

TC 0610-13 (Cited, Kollar-Kotelly’s Opinion at Findings ¶ 2.6.2.2), and (12) TC 00802-

04 (Quoted, Kollar-Kotelly’s Opinion at Findings ¶ 2.7.5).

21 Although Judge Gasch observed that “it is terribly difficult to establish, on an

principled basis, temporal boundaries governing the protection to be accorded

(continued...)

-31-

and ABC PAC (collectively, “Coalition Plaintiffs”) and relied upon by the Three-Judge

District Court, this Court is not persuaded that these materials should remain sealed in light

of “this country’s strong tradition of access to judicial proceedings,” Hubbard, 650 F.2d at

317 n.89, and the factors expounded in Hubbard. Broadly speaking, the alleged Section

437g(a)(12)(A) documents20 do not involve any information that could be considered a “trade

secret” or politically sensitive information. These documents include telephone survey

results about the impact of “issue” advertising, the effectiveness of “issue” advertising in

particular congressional districts during the 1996 election cycle, and an assessment by the

Coalition of marginal congressional districts, used in an effort to target these advertisements.

All of this information relates to Coalition Plaintiffs’ activities during the 1996 election

cycle.21 Moreover, as with all material subject to this disclosure order, the cited and quoted
21(...continued)

information,” Tavoulareas v. Washington Post Co., 111 F.R.D. 653, 661 (D.D.C. 1986)

(quoting Zenith Radio v. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., 529 F. Supp. 866, 891 (D. Pa.

1981)), the information relied upon here recounts historical events from almost seven

years ago and does not expose any unique political strategies in the process.

22 See supra note 7.

-32-

portions of these documents are highly probative to the Three-Judge District Court’s

decisions, and subsequently, the public need for this material is particularly high. Because

my Findings of Fact only rely on small portions of these documents, the relative harm

stemming from their disclosure is low. Accordingly, these documents will be disclosed to

the public, consistent with the terms in the accompanying Order.

(e) National Association of Broadcasters Plaintiff

The National Association of Broadcasters did not file any objections to the ThreeJudge District Court’s Oral Order and have thereby waived any objection to this Court’s

order to unseal portions of the record.

(f) AFL-CIO Plaintiffs22

AFL-CIO Plaintiffs joined in filing the Joint Statement, which objects to the

disclosure of alleged Section 437g(a)(12)(A) materials. Joint Statement at 1. In addition,

AFL-CIO Plaintiffs filed independent objections with the Court. Resp. of AFL-CIO and

AFL-CIO COPE PCC Regarding the Status of Docs. Filed Under Seal at 2. Because the

Court found AFL-CIO Plaintiffs’ Section 437g(a)(12)(A) objections, on their own,

unpersuasive, see supra Discussion at 14-22, the Court entertains both Plaintiffs’ Section
23 Specifically, my Findings of Fact cites or quotes from (1) AFL-CIO 001614-16

(Quoted, Kollar-Kotelly’s Opinion at Findings ¶ 2.6.1.1; Leon’s Opinion at Findings ¶

298), (2) AFL-CIO 001582-84 (Cited, Kollar-Kotelly’s Opinion at Findings ¶ 2.6.1.1;

Leon’s Opinion at Findings ¶ 298), (3) AFL-CIO 001702-04 (Quoted, Kollar-Kotelly’s

Opinion at Findings ¶ 2.6.1.1; Leon’s Opinion at Findings ¶ 298), and (4) AFL-CIO

005244 (Cited, Kollar-Kotelly’s Opinion at Findings ¶ 2.6.1.1; Leon’s Opinion at

Findings ¶ 298).

-33-

437g(a)(12)(A) objections and their general objections in light of the standards expounded

in Hubbard. 

The Three-Judge District Court did not cite or quote from any of the non-Section

437g(a)(12)(A) material to which AFL-CIO Plaintiffs object. Since this Court will only

order the disclosure of material relied on by the Three-Judge District Court, this Court will

not order the disclosure of any of this contested, non-Section 437g(a)(12)(A) material.

Of the purported Section 437g(a)(12)(A) documents, the Three-Judge District Court

only cites or quotes from four such documents.23 As the Court has observed above, AFLCIO Plaintiffs, as litigants in this case, affirmatively presented these documents to the Court

in an effort to challenge the constitutionality of BCRA. Although none of these documents

were available to the public prior to this litigation, one of the them, AFL-CIO 001614-16

(Quoted, Kollar-Kotelly’s Opinion at Findings ¶ 2.6.1.1), contains the script/description of

an advertisement run by AFL-CIO Plaintiffs during the 1996 election cycle. The information

in these documents was already made available to the public when AFL-CIO Plaintiffs ran

these advertisements almost seven years ago, and as a result, these documents are entitled to

less protection under Hubbard. Hubbard, 650 F.2d 318-20 (noting that the extent to which
24 The Paul Plaintiffs include: Representative Ron Paul, Gun Owners of America,

Inc., Gun Owners of America Political Victory Fund, RealCampaignReform.org, Citizens

United, Citizens United Political Victory Fund, Michael Cloud and Carla Howell.

-34-

documents were already made available to the public is a factor when determining whether

a document should be disclosed). The remaining three documents, all from the 1996 election

cycle– AFL-CIO 001582-84 (Cited, Kollar-Kotelly’s Opinion at Findings ¶ 2.6.1.1) contains

information about a survey conducted in 1996, AFL-CIO 001702-04 (Quoted, KollarKotelly’s Opinion at Findings ¶ 2.6.1.1) concerns “issue” advocacy and recommends various

political consultants, and AFL-CIO 005244 (Cited, Kollar-Kotelly’s Opinion at Finding ¶

2.6.1.1) suggests that the AFL-CIO should run “issue” advocacy in a particularly close

election race – were deemed probative and relevant to the issues in the case by the ThreeJudge District Court. These documents do not contain sensitive political information, and

only the quoted portion of AFL-CIO 001702-04 will be disclosed to the public. Considering

the strong public interest involved in this unique litigation and the fact that this Court has

narrowly tailored this order to protect the confidentiality interests of parties and non-parties

alike, AFL-CIO Plaintiffs’ objections cannot be sustained under Hubbard. Accordingly, this

information will be disclosed consistent with this Court’s order.

(g) Paul Plaintiffs24

Paul Plaintiffs only object to the disclosure of the identities of two factual witnesses,

presented to the Court in “Declaration of Anonymous Witness No. 1” and “Declaration of

Anonymous Witness No. 2.” Notice With Respect to Paul Pls.’ Designations of Confidential
25 The RNC Plaintiffs include: the Republican National Committee, Mike Duncan,

Republican Party of Colorado, Republican Party of Ohio, Republican Party of New

Mexico, and Dallas County (Iowa), Republican Central Committee.

-35-

Docs. and Recommendation Concerning Continued Confidentiality at 1. Paul Plaintiffs

observe that at no point has a party “sought the public disclosure of the anonymous

witnesses’ identities.” Id. at 2.

Because the Three-Judge District Court did not rely on the testimony of these

witnesses, Paul Plaintiffs may keep their identities confidential. The Three-Judge District

Court did not rely on the anonymous witnesses’ assertions in formulating its opinions, and

as a result, the disclosure of their identities is not necessary for the public to evaluate the

substance of the Three-Judge District Court’s opinions.

(h) Republican National Committee (“RNC”) Plaintiffs25

RNC Plaintiffs object to the disclosure of certain documents filed with the Court. See

generally RNC Pls.’ and CRP’s Objections to the Unsealing of Certain Docs [hereinafter

“RNC Pls.’ Objections”]. Specifically, RNC Plaintiffs urge the Court to “consider lifting

confidentiality only for those documents that are actually relied upon in reaching its decision

and in the parties’ pleadings,” id. at 5, but also object to the disclosure of five documents

relied upon by the parties in their pleadings, see id., App. A. In addition, RNC Plaintiffs

object to the disclosure of documents containing sensitive political strategies, see id., App.

B, and ask the Court to redact documents containing personal and financial information, see

id., App. C, D. 
26 The Court commends RNC Plaintiffs for carefully indexing hundreds of

documents and for significantly narrowing the universe of contested documents.

-36-

As indicated above, the Court will only order the disclosure of documents relied upon

by the Three-Judge District Court, either as disclosed through quotation or, where necessary,

through a copy of the actual document. It follows then that this Court is only entertaining

the disclosure of highly probative information. As RNC Plaintiffs acknowledge, RNC Pls.’

Objections at 4 (citing National Children’s Center), the D.C. Circuit held: “A court’s

decrees, its judgments, its orders, are the quintessential business of the public’s institutions,”

Nat’l Children’s Center, 98 F.3d at 1409.

The Three-Judge District Court only cites to one document contested by RNC

Plaintiffs, RNC 0275390-96 (Quoted, Kollar-Kotelly’s Opinion at Finding ¶ 2.7.10.1), and

cites to a third document, RNC NM 0406326-33 (Cited,Kollar-Kotelly’s Opinion at Findings

¶ 1.26.4.1), which purportedly contains sensitive personal information that should be

redacted.26 This Court concludes that these documents are not protected under Hubbard, and

therefore, must be disclosed to the extent indicated in the accompanying order. However,

because the personal information contained in RNC NM 0406326-33 – namely, a certified

public accountant’s name and contact information – will not serve to advance the public’s

understanding of that document, RNC Plaintiffs may redact this information before releasing

it to the public. In addition, RNC Plaintiffs may redact e-mail addresses included in RNC
27 Consistent with the accompanying order, RNC Plaintiffs need not disclose a

physical copy of RNC 0275390-96 because it was quoted in my Findings of Fact.

-37-

0221404-05.27

Although these documents were obtained through discovery and would not otherwise

have been available to the public, RNC Plaintiffs made a conscious and volitional decision

to litigate. These documents are highly probative and, as with all documents under review

in this memorandum opinion, were relied upon by the Three-Judge District Court. The

public has a strong need for this information to evaluate the merits of the Three-Judge

District Court’s opinions – opinions that review the constitutionality of the first major

overhaul of our existing campaign finance laws in more than twenty-five years. While these

documents may contain information that the RNC does not want to disclose, that alone does

not meet the stringent standard under Hubbard. RNC Plaintiffs have not established, in this

particular instance, that the harm resulting from the disclosure of these documents is

substantial or comparable to the disclosure of “trade secrets” in the business realm. The

political strategies contained in these documents are, at most, conclusory and not of recent

vintage being from the 1998 election cycle. As a result, the Court is left to conclude that

RNC Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a compelling need to keep these documents under seal

contrary to “this country’s strong tradition of access to judicial proceedings.” Hubbard, 650

F.2d at 317 n.89.
28 The California Democratic Party Plaintiffs include: the California Democratic

Party, Art Torres, Yolo County Democratic Central Committee, California Republican

Party, Shawn Steel, Timothy J. Morgan, Barbara Alby, Santa Cruz County Republican

Central Committee, and Douglas R. Boyd, Sr. The California Republican party filed

objections with the RNC Plaintiffs. See supra Discussion at 33-35.

29 None of the contested CRP Plaintiff documents were cited or quoted from by the

Three-Judge District Court. Therefore, consistent with the rest of this opinion and the

accompanying order, none of these documents will be disclosed.

-38-

(i) California Democratic Party Plaintiffs28

Of the nine individuals and entities that comprise the California Democratic Party

Plaintiffs, only two filed objections with the Court: the California Democratic Party (“CDP

Plaintiff”) and the California Republican Party (“CRP Plaintiff”). CRP Plaintiff, however,

filed its objections with the RNC Plaintiffs.29

 See supra Discussion at 33-35. Therefore, the

Court only entertains the objections of CDP Plaintiff here.

CDP Plaintiff “has no objection to the vast majority of its documents being unsealed

subject to certain information being redacted, but does object to unsealing certain

confidential documents relating to donor information and the coordinated campaign.”

Objections of CDP to the Unsealing of Certain Docs. at 1-2. CDP requests that “bank

account or other personal or sensitive information be redacted.” Id. at 2. Moreover, “CDP

continues to have an objection to lifting confidentiality with respect to three sets of

documents,” id., allegedly protected under Hubbard, id. at 3. The second and third sets of

documents, according to CDP Plaintiffs, “include sensitive fundraising and coordinated

campaign planning documents,” id., and the first set of documents, a “fundraising ‘call’ list,”
30 The Adams Plaintiffs are Victoria Jackson Gray Adams, Carrie Bolton, Cynthia

Brown, Derek Cressman, Victoria Fitzgerald, Anurada Joshi, Nancy Russell, Kate SeelyKirk, Peter Kostmayer, Rose Taylor, Stephanie L. Wilson, California Public Interest

Research Group, Massachusetts Public Interest Research Group, New Jersey Public

Interest Research Group, United States Public Interest Research Group, the Fannie Lou

Hamer Project, and Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now.

-39-

id. at 4, contains “potentially sensitive personal and political information,” id. At a

minimum, CDP Plaintiffs argue that the “names and organizations of the[se] potential

donors” should be redacted. Id.

The Three-Judge District Court has not cited or quoted from the second or third set

of documents, but has quoted from the first set of documents, the “fundraising ‘call’ list,”

CDP 00124 (Quoted, Kollar-Kotelly’s Opinion at Findings ¶ 1.77.10; Leon’s Opinion at

Findings ¶ 229). This Court, however, is not persuaded that the quoted portions of this

document are subject to confidentiality contrary to “this country’s strong tradition of access

to judicial proceedings.” Hubbard, 650 F.2d at 317 n.89. The Three-Judge District Court

only quotes a snippet of material, which does not indicate any sensitive personal information

about individual donors. The quote is highly probative and is narrowly tailored to protect

both CDP Plaintiff’s and third party privacy interests. As a result, this material will be

disclosed to the public as it appears, quoted in the Three-Judge District Court’s opinion.

(j) Adams Plaintiffs30

Adams Plaintiffs have waived their objections to the unsealing of all the documents

that they filed with the Court. Adams Pls.’ Supp. Submission Regarding the Status of Docs.
31 The Thompson Plaintiffs are Representative Bennie G. Thompson and

Representative Earl F. Hilliard.

32 The Defendant Intervenors are Senators John McCain, Russell Feingold,

Olympia Snowe and James Jeffords and Representatives Christopher Shays and Martin

Meehan.

-40-

Filed Under Seal at 3 (“Therefore, all materials that the Adams plaintiffs filed under seal

should be unsealed as of the date specified in the stipulation.”) (emphasis in original).

(k) Thompson Plaintiffs31

Thompson Plaintiffs did not file any objections to the Three-Judge District Court’s

Oral Order and have thereby waived any objection to this Court’s order to unseal portions

of the record.

(l) Defendant Intervenors32

Defendant Intervenors filed a memorandum, arguing that “the Court can and should

– with a very few exceptions – open the record in this case to public view.” Memorandum

in Resp. to the Opp’ns to the Unsealing of the Record at 1. Defendant Intervenors did not

object to the disclosure of testimony or documents that they supplied to the Court. See

generally id. As a result, Defendant Intervenors have waived any objection to the Court’s

order to unseal portions of the record provided by Defendant Intervenors.

(2) Non-Party Objections

As observed above, under the Hubbard test, the Court must take into consideration

the identity of the party raising the objection. Hubbard, 650 F.2d at 319. Indeed, Hubbard

observed that “the fact that [the] objection to access is made by a third party weighs in favor
-41-

of non-disclosure.” Id. at 320. Nonetheless, the D.C. Circuit did not suggest that third party

status, alone, was dispositive of this inquiry. Moreover, in Hubbard, the D.C. Circuit did not

consider the type of third party documents and testimony at issue in this case. In fact, the

documents at issue in Hubbard are readily distinguishable from the documents the Court

reviews here. In Hubbard, the D.C. Circuit observed that the contested documents “were not

specifically referred to or examined upon during the course of [the] proceedings” and their

“only relevance to the proceedings derived from the defendants’ contention that many of

them were not relevant to the proceedings” at all. Id. at 316. Here, however, the ThreeJudge District Court found the cited information – the only information this Court has

decided merits disclosure – highly probative to its determination. This information does not

involve peripheral matters but facts at the heart of the constitutionality of BCRA. As a result,

while this Court recognizes the unique interests of third parties, it also recognizes that the

public has a particularly strong right of access to the judicial documents relied upon in this

case.

In some cases, however, the Court has determined that the rights of certain non-parties

to this proceeding warrant additional protection, consistent with the factors expounded in

Hubbard. In these narrow instances, this Court has left the entire quote in the Three-Judge

District Court’s opinion intact, but characterized the non-party in such a way as to protect its

confidentiality. Subsequently, the citations accompanying these quotations – which would
33 Unlike the non-party interests discussed in “(a) Government Defendants,” see

infra Discussion at 40-44, these quotations involve the internal operations and affairs of

non-parties to this proceeding, and do not involve general observations about the

campaign finance system. Moreover, the specific identities of these protected non-parties

are not necessary for the public to evaluate the substance of the quotations. The

characterizations of these protected non-parties, alone, should satisfy the public’s right of

access to judicial proceedings while respecting the rights of these non-parties.

34 The parties need not disclose the underlining documents, cited in support of

Government Defendants’ and Government Intervenors’ Proposed Findings of Fact, as

these materials are too attenuated to be deemed pertinent to the Three-Judge District

Court’s inquiry.

35 The Government Defendants include: the Federal Election Commission; the

United States of America; the United States Department of Justice; the Federal

Communications Commission; John Ashcroft, in his official capacity as Attorney General

of the United States of America; and David M. Mason, Karl J. Sandstrom, Danny L.

McDonald, Bradley A. Smith, Scott E. Thomas and Michael E. Toner, in their official

capacities as Commissioners of the FEC.

The Government Defendants submitted third party documents and testimony, filed

under seal, to bolster their defense. According to the Government Defendants, the

unsealing of this information could prejudice these third party witnesses and the

Government’s ability to obtain voluntary witnesses in the future. Mot. of the DOJ and

FEC to Maintain Certain Portions of the Record Under Seal and Memorandum in Support

Thereof at 1-3. As a result, the Court will entertain these objections as if they had been

filed by non-parties in this litigation.

-42-

indicate to the public the identity of these non-parties – have been redacted.33

 In addition,

Judge Henderson has cited to portions of Government Defendants’ Amended Proposed

Findings of Fact and Defendant Intervenors’ Proposed Findings of Fact. These documents

will be disclosed to the public, but portions of these documents have been redacted because

they implicate the same type of non-party privacy interests.34

(a) Government Defendants35

In mounting their defense of the constitutionality of BCRA, Government Defendants
36 Non-party NRSC also filed separate objections with the Court, entertained

below. See infra Discussion at 48-49.

-43-

relied extensively upon the testimony of third party witnesses, including campaign finance

scholars and experts, political consultants, former candidates for public office, former

members of Congress, and representatives from the Democratic Congressional Campaign

Committee (“DCCC”), the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (“DSCC”), the

National Republican Congressional Committee (“NRCC”), and the National Republican

Senatorial Committee (“NRSC”).36 As the Government Defendants observe: “This challenge

to the constitutionality of campaign finance regulation in BCRA is not typical litigation.”

Mot. of DOJ and FEC to Maintain Certain Portions of the Record Under Seal and

Memorandum in Support Thereof at 8 [hereinafter “Gov’t Defs.’ Objections”]. Defendants

continue by noting that their “defense of BCRA was dependent upon obtaining evidence of

how actors in the campaign finance system engaged in practices related to [the] subjects that

BCRA was intended to regulate.” Id. (emphasis added). In the Court’s view, however, this

is precisely why the public’s right to access is particularly compelling in this case.

In Hubbard, the D.C. Circuit noted the apocalyptic warnings of James Madison: “A

popular Government without proper information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a

Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy: or perhaps both. . . . A people who mean to be their own

Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.” Hubbard, 650

F.2d at 315 n.79 (quoting James Madison); see also id. (noting the importance of providing
37 In Johnson, the D.C. Circuit noted that a protective “order should be no broader

than is necessary to protect those specific interests identified as in need of protection.”

Johnson, 951 F.2d at 1278.

38 Government Defendants made no effort to distinguish between those portions of

non-party testimony that were and were not protected under Hubbard. See Gov’t Defs.’

Objections at 1 (“The Department of Justice and the Federal Election Commission . . .

oppose the wholesale unsealing of the record.”). In many instances, the Court had to

compare redacted and un-redacted copies of Defendants’ Amended Proposed Findings of

Fact to ascertain which portions of the testimony that Government Defendants did and did

not contest disclosing, despite the Three-Judge District Court’s Oral Order, which

(continued...)

-44-

access to “information concerning the operation of the government”). The Court agrees with

Defendants, this case cannot be characterized as “typical litigation;” it involves the

fundamental operations of our republican form of government. The Court concludes,

however, that the public’s right to access is unquestionably strong here, and is not merely

limited to the Three-Judge District Court’s holdings. The law – and the judiciary that

expounds its principles – is dependent upon reason; decisions must be grounded in logic and,

where appropriate, substantiated by the facts of each particular case. In order for the public

to evaluate the merits of the Three-Judge District Court’s opinions, they must be provided

with as much of the record relied upon by the Court that is legally permissible to disclose.

37

Government Defendants put forth two basic arguments: (1) “[u]nsealing the testimony

or otherwise making it publicly available could have adverse effects on the witnesses

professionally,” Gov’t Defs.’ Objections at 10, and (2) the disclosure of this voluntary

testimony “could seriously prejudice the government’s ability to obtain volunteer testimony

on sensitive . . . matters . . . in the future,” id. at 10-11.38 In addition, the Court notes that,
38(...continued)

notified the parties that they were supposed to raise specific objections regarding the

portions of the record that they wanted to remain under seal. See Tr. at 387-396.

39 In fact, Government Defendants already disclosed much of this information in

their redacted Amended Proposed Findings of Fact. As a result, this information is

accorded even less protection under Hubbard because it has already been made available

to the public. See Hubbard, 650 F.2d at 318-20.

-45-

as third parties, these witnesses are afforded greater protections under Hubbard. See

Hubbard, 650 F.2d at 320; see also supra Discussion at 38-39. Nonetheless, given the

“strong tradition of access to judicial proceedings,” Hubbard, 650 F.2d at 317 n.89, and

based on the nature of the testimony and the fact that this Court has limited disclosure to the

portions relied upon by the Three-Judge District Court, this Court will require Government

Defendants to disclose the testimony of these third-party witnesses in accordance with the

accompanying order.

While the testimony of third-party witnesses is accorded greater protection under

Hubbard, the right of confidentiality is not absolute. The Court has carefully reviewed the

Three-Judge District Court’s opinions and taken into consideration the nature of the

information provided by these witnesses. In the vast majority of instances, the testimony

cited or relied upon by the Three-Judge District Court contains general observations about

our existing campaign finance system. Certainly this portion of the testimony is afforded no

special protection under Hubbard.39

 The remaining cited testimony, which mentionsspecific

examples of campaign activities under pre-BCRA law, can be divided into two categories:

(1) testimony provided by political consultants, former candidates for public office, and
40 The Government Defendants also disclosed large portions of this testimony in

the redacted Amended Proposed Findings of Fact. See supra note 39.

-46-

former members of Congress40 and (2) declarations made by representatives from the DCCC,

DSCC, NRCC, and NRSC. None of the testimony in the first category refers to the activities

of a political consultant’s own clients or client-related activities; nor does it describe a former

candidate’s or a former member of Congress’s own campaign activities; nor can any of this

information be characterized as a “trade secret.” The risk of harm from the disclosure of this

highly probative information is minimal. As for the second group, it is difficult to

characterize any of the information relied upon by the Three-Judge District Court as

“politically sensitive” material. The testimony of representatives from each of the four

major-party congressional campaign committees suggests that they all engage in the same

general practices. It is a stretch to call the common practices of the two major political

parties “trade secrets” or “politically sensitive” activities, and it is highly unlikely that any

harm will result from the disclosure of this common knowledge.

The Court also finds Defendants’ second argument – that the Government will have

difficultly obtaining third-party witnesses in the future based on this Court’s decision –

unpersuasive in this particular instance. First, the plain language of the Agreed Protective

Order made it clear that the Court retained the power to review documents submitted to it

under seal. See, e.g., Agreed Protective Order ¶ 25 (“Notwithstanding anything to the

contrary that may be set forth herein, the parties understand that the Court shall retain the
-47-

authority to modify this Order upon good cause shown.”). Second, by narrowly tailoring this

disclosure order to only the most probative information, the Court carefully fashioned this

order to protect “both the public interest in access and the private interest in non-disclosure.”

Hubbard, 650 F.2d at 324-25. In future cases, the government can assure voluntary

witnesses that their interests will be protected to the full extent provided for under the agreed

protective order and the applicable circuit’s law – in this case, Hubbard. The Court and the

American public, nonetheless, owe a great deal of gratitude to these voluntary witnesses for

their willingness to come forward and provide critical information about the way our existing

campaign finance system operates.

(b) American Financial Group

Non-party American Financial Group (“AFG”) objects to “unsealing confidential

documents insofar as they pertain to documents produced by AFG.” Objections of Non-Party

AFG to the Unsealing of Confidential Docs. at 1. Because the Three-Judge District Court

did not cite or quote from any AFG documents, this Court will not order their disclosure.

(c) AT&T

Non-party AT&T filed a letter with the Court, preserving its objections to the

disclosure of all documents and testimony that it filed with the Court. See AT&T Letter at

1 (dated Dec. 17, 2002). Of the documents and testimony filed with the Court, however, I

cite to only one AT&T document in my Findings of Fact, ATT 000018 (Cited, KollarKotelly’s Opinion at Findings ¶ 1.77.4 ). This Court concludes that this document is not
-48-

protected under Hubbard, and it will be disclosed consistent with the accompanying order.

The cited document, ATT 000018, does not represent the internal communications or

business strategies of AT&T executives, rather it is an invitation to attend the 1999

Republican House-Senate Dinner. The fact that an AT&T executive received this invitation

is not a characterization of AT&T or a reflection of its political activities. The citation

merely seeks to demonstrate that corporate executives receive invitations to such events at

the behest of the major political parties. Because this document does not involve the internal

strategies or “trade secrets” of AT&T, and because this document is reflective of the majorparties’, and not AT&T’s, activities, the Court believes the disclosure of this document is

consistent with the factors expounded in Hubbard.

(d) Brennan Center for Justice

Non-parties Brennan Center for Justice and Professor Kenneth M. Goldstein

(collectively, “Non-parties Brennan Center”) submitted limited objectionsto the Three-Judge

District Court’s Oral Order to unseal the record in this case. Objection of Brennan Center

and Prof. Kenneth M. Goldstein to Lifting Confidentiality at 1. Specifically, Non-parties

Brennan Center object to the disclosure of a CD-ROM database supplied to the Court. Id.

This Court observes that the actual database was not relied upon by the Three-Judge District

Court and, therefore, will not be released to the public. Subsequently, and consistent with

the accompanying order, this information will not be disclosed to the public.
41 The Three-Judge District Court’s opinions cite or quote from Ryan’s deposition

at the following places: Ryan Dep. at 10-11 (Quoted, Kollar-Kotelly’s Opinion at

Findings ¶ 2.6.3.1), 13 (Quoted and Cited, Kollar-Kotelly’s Opinion at Findings 

¶ 2.6.3.1), 13-15 (Cited in Henderson’s Findings of Fact at Finding ¶ 35), 15 (Cited,

Kollar-Kotelly’s Opinion at Findings ¶ 2.6.3.4), 42 (Cited, Kollar-Kotelly’s Opinion at

Findings ¶ 2.6.3.2), 68-72 (Cited, Kollar-Kotelly’s Opinion at Findings ¶ 2.6.3.3, 2.6.3.4;

Leon’s Opinion at Findings ¶ 301), 74-75 (Quoted, Kollar-Kotelly’s Opinion at Finding ¶

2.11.4.4), 76-77 (Cited, Kollar-Kotelly’s Opinion at Findings ¶ 2.8.3.4 n.98), 79-85

(Cited, Kollar-Kotelly’s Opinion at Finding ¶ 2.6.3.3; Leon’s Opinion at Findings ¶ 301).

-49-

(e) National Media, Inc., and Citizens for Better Medicare

Non-parties National Media, Inc. (“NMI”) and Citizens for Better Medicare (“CBM”)

“object[] to the unsealing of documents and testimony.” CBM Objections to the Unsealing

of Docs. and Testimony at 5 [hereinafter “CBM Objections”]; NMI Objections to the

Unsealing of Docs. and Testimony at 5 [hereafter “NMI Objections”]. According to these

non-parties, the documents and testimony that NMI and CBM contest “go to the heart of both

CBM’s and NMI’s strategies and tactics for creating and implementing CBM’s political and

communication/advertising campaigns.” NMI Objections at 2. In addition, this material

discloses “CBM’s strategies and tactics for creating, implementing and funding issue

advocacy and grassroots lobbying campaigns on the important issue of meaningful marketbased reforms of the nation’s Medicare system.” CBM Objections at 2.

The Three-Judge District Court’s opinions, however, do not disclose information

related to “strategies or tactics.” For example, the portions of Timothy C. Ryan’s deposition

quoted or cited in the opinions41 verify the amount of money CBM spent in 1999 and 2000

on television advertising and the source of CBM’s funding – information that is available to
42 Specifically, the opinion quotes the following documents: CBM 0029 (Quoted,

Kollar-Kotelly’s Opinion at Findings ¶ 2.6.3.1; Leon’s Opinion at Findings ¶ 301); CBM

Who We Are... (Quoted, Kollar-Kotelly’s Opinion at Findings ¶ 2.6.3.1; Leon’s Opinion

at Findings ¶ 301); USA-CBM 0004 (Quoted, Kollar-Kotelly’s Opinion at Findings ¶

2.6.3.3).

43 Castellanos Dep. 63-66 (Cited, Kollar-Kotelly’s Opinion at Findings ¶¶ 2.6.3.3,

2.6.3.4; Leon’s Opinion at Findings ¶ 301), 94 and 95 through line 12 (Cited, KollarKotelly’s Opinion at Findings ¶ 2.6.3.3), 103-04 (Cited, Kollar-Kotelly’s Opinion at

(continued...)

-50-

the public through other avenues. In addition, some of these cited or quoted portions

contained characterizations about the intentions of CBM with regard to “issue advocacy.”

These revelations are not strategic in nature or likely to prejudice CBM; they merely suggest

that CBM viewed these advertisements as a means of shaping the policy debate, and not

campaigning for or against any particular candidate. This viewpoint is consistent with

several of the litigants’ contentions and cannot be characterized as a political strategy. The

three documents quoted or cited in my Findings of Fact, likewise, do not contain strategies.42

The first document merely discloses the total amount of contributions CBM received from

pharmaceutical companies; the second document is a description of how CBM holds itself

out to the public, and it is accessible by the public; and the third document characterizes

CBM’s advertising strategies for the 2000 elections, but the quoted portion – and hence, the

only portion of the document disclosed pursuant to the order accompanying this opinion –

does not mention specific political strategies. Finally, the portions of Alex Castellanos’s

deposition cited by the Three-Judge District Court in my Findings of Fact divulge his

characterizations about the advertisements NMI ran.43 This testimony does not disclose
43(...continued)

Findings ¶ 2.6.3.2), 111-12 (Cited, Kollar-Kotelly’s Opinion at Findings ¶ 1.26.7.3;

Leon’s Opinion at Findings ¶ 144).

44 The Court already entertained Government Defendant’s objections on behalf of

NRSC above, see supra Discussion at 40-44, with regard to the declaration of Alexander

N. Vogel, General Counsel to NRSC. Non-party NRSC also filed its own objections to

the disclosure of NRSC documents filed with the Court. See generally Objections of

Non-Party NRSC to Lifting the Confidentiality of Agreed Protective Order to Certain

Docs. Therefore, the Court will entertain NRSC’s objections to the disclosure of these

contested documents here.

-51-

specific political strategies and it is unlikely to prejudice NMI. The public’s strong right of

access cannot be overstated here. This information was deemed highly relevant by the ThreeJudge District Court. As a result, this Court will order the disclosure of this information,

consistent with the terms in the accompanying order.

(f) National Republican Senatorial Committee44

Non-party National Republican Senatorial Committee (“NRSC”) requests that the

Court “maintain the confidentiality of all documents that the NRSC voluntarily submitted to

the government.” Objections of Non-Party NRSC to Lifting the Confidentiality of Agreed

Protective Order to Certain Docs. at 2. Specifically, NRSC requested that certain documents,

listed in Appendix A of its Objections, remain confidential. Id. at 3, n. 1. These documents

“contain sensitive political information, including the fundraising and campaign strategies

that the NRSC has used in recent years.” Id. at 7.

The Three-Judge District Court only cites to one NRSC document in its opinions,

NRSC 066-000009 (Cited, Kollar-Kotelly’s Opinion at Findings ¶ 1.53; Leon’s Opinion at
45 Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America (“PhRMA”).

-52-

Findings ¶ 222), and although NRSC objects to the disclosure of all of its documents, the

Court notes that this particular document was not listed among the documents that NRSC

explicitly contested. See id., App. A. This document, a draft letter, invites members of the

“High Technology industry” to attend the 1998 Republican House-Senate Dinner. NRSC

066-000009. Beyond the fact that it is a draft letter, it does not represent the internal

correspondence of NRSC, nor does it contain “sensitive political strategies.” The letter is

a solicitation to attend a fundraising dinner, and as such, it is sent out to individuals and

entities that may do with it what they choose. While these sorts of letters are not sent out to

the general public, they are sent out to third parties to request their attendance at a particular

event. Non-party NRSC can only claim a reduced privacy interest in this document.

Considering that this information was deemed probative by the Three-Judge District Court

and “this country’s strong tradition of access to judicial proceedings,” Hubbard, 650 F.2d at

317 n.89, coupled with NRSC’s reduced privacy interests, the Court will order the disclosure

of this document, as it is quoted by the Three-Judge District Court in its opinions.

(g) PhRMA45

Non-party PhRMA “objects to the unsealing of any document produced by PhRMA

in connection with this [proceeding].” PhRMA Objections to the Unsealing of Docs. at 1.

PhRMA notes that “[m]any of the documents produced . . . are politically sensitive and could

result in . . . fallout or injury.” Id. at 2. PhRMA also contends that it was not provided with
46 Specifically, the Three-Judge District Court opinions include: (1) PH 0379

(Quoted, Kollar-Kotelly’s Opinion at Findings ¶ 2.6.3.1 ; Leon’s Opinion at Findings ¶

301), (2) Bello Dep. at 39 (Quoted, Kollar-Kotelly’s Opinion at Findings ¶ 1.80.1), (3)

Bello Dep. at 82 (Cited, Kollar-Kotelly’s Opinion at Findings ¶ 1.77.7; Leon’s Opinion at

Findings ¶ 226), and (4) Bello Dep. at 149-50 (Cited, Kollar-Kotelly’s Opinion at

Findings ¶ 2.6.3.3).

-53-

formal notice by the Three-Judge District Court of its Oral Order to consider unsealing the

record in these proceedings. Id. Nonetheless, PhRMA was obviously aware of the ThreeJudge District Court’s order and filed this objection.

In four separate instances,46 I quoted testimony or a document provided by PhRMA

in my Findings of Fact. This material does not fall under the limited disclosure protections

accorded by Hubbard, and therefore, this material will be disclosed consistent with the terms

of the accompanying order.

The document quoted in my Findings of Fact merely confirms that PhRMA

contributed money to Citizens for Better Medicare. This information is no secret and merely

validates the Three-Judge District Court’s proposition that PhRMA sponsors Citizens for

Better Medicare. Moreover, because the Three-Judge District Court quoted directly from the

source, the Court will not require the disclosure of a physical copy of this document. As for

the remaining information cited in my Findings of Fact, this testimony was deemed highly

probative; it goes directly to the heart of this litigation. Although Non-party PhRMA has a

strong privacy interest here, the public has an equally strong right of access to the documents

relied upon in this particular judicial proceeding. PhRMA has not demonstrated that any
47 Lux Dep. Ex. 2 (Cited, Kollar-Kotelly’s Opinion at Findings ¶ 1.88).

48 Lux Dep. at 50-52 (Quoted, Kollar-Kotelly’s Opinion at Findings ¶ 1.88 and

Henderson’s Findings of Fact at Finding ¶ 79.d.(1)).

-54-

harm will result from the disclosure of this particular testimony. Furthermore, the disclosure

of this information, limited to four instances where this material was deemed highly

probative, does not unveil sensitive political strategies or trade secrets, and the risk of

“fallout or injury” in this particular instance is low.

(h) Progressive Strategies, LLC

Non-party Progressive Strategies, LLC, “objects to the lifting of confidentiality under,

or other rescission or abrogation, by the Court, of the Agreed Protective Order.” Objections

of Non-Party Progressive Strategies, LLC to Lifting of Confidentiality Under Agreed

Protective Order at 1. The materials filed under the Agreed Protective Order include “the

transcript of the Deposition of Michael Scott Lux taken by RNC on August 26, 2002[,] and

certain exhibits thereto, consisting of documents” provided by Progressive Strategies. Id.

The Three-Judge District Court only cites to one of the documents provided as an

exhibit to Lux’s deposition.47 In addition, the opinions reference two portions of Lux’s

testimony.48 None of this cited material relates to Progressive Strategies’s “agenda, goals and

objectives, [or] to . . . communications with and conferences held with its clients.” Id.

Indeed, the document cited by the Three-Judge District Court in its opinions consists of a

copy of Progressive Strategies’s Internet site, which is already available to and accessible by

the public. Moreover, Lux’s testimony was merely cited to substantiate his qualifications,
-55-

Lux Dep. Ex. 2 (Cited, Kollar-Kotelly’s Opinion at Findings ¶ 1.88), id. at 5, 16 (Cited,

Henderson’s Opinion at note 118), which is also available on Progressive Strategies’s

Internet site in the form of biographical information, or because it made general observations

about the campaign finance system, see Lux Dep. at 50-52 (Quoted, Kollar-Kotelly’s Opinion

at Finding ¶ 1.88 and Henderson’s Findings of Fact at Finding ¶ 79.d.(1)). This material does

not warrant confidentiality contrary to “this country’s strong tradition of access to judicial

proceedings.” Hubbard, 650 F.2d at 317 n.89. It does not contain sensitive political or

strategic information, and it is highly unlikely to prejudice Progressive Strategies. As a

result, this information will be disclosed consistent with the terms of the order accompanying

this Memorandum Opinion.
-56-

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, and consistent with the Court’s broad discretion, the

Court will make the Three-Judge District Court’s opinions available to the public, with the

exception of a few narrow instances where the Court has redacted the source of the cited

material to protect the confidentiality of a non-party to these proceedings. All documents

quoted in the Three-Judge District Court’s opinions will be made available to the public as

they appear, quoted in the opinions. All other documents cited in the opinions shall be

disclosed, based on the level of specificity indicated by the citation, with the exception of the

Defendants’ Amended Proposed Findings of Fact and Defendant Intervenors’ Proposed

Findings of Fact, portions of which have been redacted. An order detailing these obligations

will accompany this opinion.

/s/ 

COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY

United States District Judge

May 2, 2003