## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 11

- 3693 C EN TER FO R I NDIVIDUAL F R E E DO M, Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant, v. L I S A M ADI GAN, A tto rneyGenera l ofthe St ate o fI l l i noi s etal. , D efend a nts-A pp ellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Divisi on. No . 1:10- cv-04383

—WilliamT. Hart, Judge .
A RG UE D A PRI L 10, 2012

— D ECI DE D S EP TE MBE R 10, 2012

Befo re P OSNER, R OV NER, a nd H A MI L T ON, C ircu it Judges. H A MI L T ON, C ircu it Judge. The Suprem e Court’ s deci si on i n Ci t iz e n s Un i t e dv . F EC, 13 0 S
. Ct. 87 6 ( 2010 ) , i s be st known f orstriki ng down as an unconst i tuti onalr est ri cti o n o ffr ee s pee chthe fede r all aw tha t ba ns c o r po r at i o ns an d l abor u nion s from run nin g cam p aign-related ad verti se m en ts i n the l ea d- up t o a n e l ec ti o n. T ha t ho l di ng l a r g e l y o ve r s ha do we d a no the rp a r to fthe de c i s i o n up -2 N o. 11

- 3693

See Na tio n a l O rg . fo r M a rr iag e, In c . v . S ec ’y, N o. 11- 14193, 2012 1 W L 1758607, at * 1 ( 11th Cir

. M ay 17, 2012) ( unp ub li shed op i ni on ) ( r ej e c t i ngf a c i a l a nd a s - a ppl i e d c ha l l e ng e t o Fl or i da d isc lo su re la w s); Th eRe al Tr uth Abo utAbo r t i o n, Inc . v . F EC , 681 F. 3 d 5 4 4 , 5 4 6 ( 4 th Ci r . 2 0 1 2 ) ( r ej e c t i ngf a c i a l a nd a s - a ppli ed chall enge t o F EC disc los ure re gulati ons pursuant t o Federal E le ct io n C a m p a ig n A c t ); Fa mi ly PAC v. M cKe nna , 685 F. 3d 800, (co n tin u ed ...) hold ing the sam e law ’s cam p aig n finan ce d isclosure provi si ons. Those provi si ons re quir e any outsi de en tity ori nd i vi du alspending s ignifi cant s um s in a federa l e l e c t i o n t o fi l e r e p o r t s w i th t he Fe d e r a lE l e c t i o nC o mm i ss i o n ( F EC) i den ti fy i ngthe pe r so n o rg r o up mak i ng th e e x p en d itu re , i ts am ou n t, an d t h e n am es of ce rt ain con tr ibutor s. Descr ibi ng di scl osur e r equi re m ents as a “l ess r est ri cti ve al ternati ve to m or e co m p re hensi ve re gula ti ons of speech ,” th e Cit ize ns U ni t e d Court w ro te tha t“ pr o mptdi s c l o s ur e o fe xp e nd i tur e s c a n pr o v i de shar ehol ders and ci ti zens w i th the i nfo rm ation needed to h old c or p or at ion s an d ele c te d offic ials a c c ou n ta b le f o rthe i rp o s i t i o ns a nd s up po r t e r s . . . . T he F i r s tAmen dm ent pr ote cts pol i ti calspeec h ; and di scl osur e per m i ts ci ti ze n s a nd shar ehol ders to re act to the s peech o fco rpora te enti ti es in a p roper w ay. ” Id. at91 6. D es p ite th is hold ing, in the afterm ath of Cit ize ns U ni t e d a num ber ofsui ts h av e b een fi l ed chal l engi ng federa land sta te di s c l o s ur e r e g ul a t i o ns a s f a c i a l l y u nc o ns t i tut i onal

. Of the federa lco urts o fappeal s that hav e dec id ed these ca se s, e ve r y o ne has uph el d the di sc l o su r e r egul at i o ns aga i nst the f aci alat tack s. 1N o. 11

- 3693 3

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 1 81 1 ( 9th Ci r. 20 12 ) ( rej ec t ing f ac i al c hal l en ge t o W as hi ngt on d isc lo su re la w s); Nati on al O rg.f or M arri age v. M cK ee, 649 F. 3d 34, 41 ( 1stCir. 2011) (r ej ect ing fac ialchal le nge to M aine disc los ure la w s); H u m a n L ife o

f Wa sh . In c . v . B ru m sic k le, 624 F. 3d 990, 994- 95 ( 9 th C i r . 2 0 1 0 ) ( r ej e c t i n g f a c i a l c h a l l e n g e t o Was h i n g t o n d i s c l os ur e l aws ) ; s ee al s o Sp e e chno w. o rgv . F EC , 599 F. 3d 686, 696- 98 (D .C. Ci r . 20 10 ) (up ho ld ing fed era l d isclosu re req u irem en ts as app lied to unincor porated nonp rofitas soc iat ion that was re q u ir ed b y th e F E C to re g ist er as a p o lit ic a l co m m itt ee ). B u t c f. S am pson v. Bu escher, 625 F. 3d 1247, 1249 ( 10th Cir

. 2010) (inv alid atin g C olo rad o ca m p aig n fina nc e d isclosu re req u irem en ts as app li ed t o neighborhoo d group that had rai se d l es s than $ 1 ,00 0 to o p p o se an n ex a tio n ); New M exi co Y out h Organize d v. Herrera , 611 F. 3d 669, 671 ( 10th Cir

. 2010) (invali dating N ew M ex i c o d isclosu re req u irem en ts as ap p lied to tw o n on p ro fit or gani za t i ons “for m ed for the pur pos e ofe duca t i ng y oung N ew M exica ns ab ou t iss u es such as hea lthca re, clean election s, th e e co n o m y an d th e e n v ir o n m en t” ). T his case i nv olves anot h e r suc h ch all en ge. Plaintiff

ap p ell an t C en ter for I nd ivi d ua l Freed om ( th e C en t e r) see ks to i nval i date I l l i noi s di scl osur e r equi re m ents on the g ro und s that they a re f aci al l y va gu e a nd o verbro ad restrictions of spee ch i n violation of th e Fir s t a n d Fourtee nth A m endm en ts . I l l i noi s’ s di scl osur e l aw i s m odel ed on the federa lo ne. I t r equi re s g ro up s a nd i nd i vi du al s that ac c e pt“ c o nt r ib ut i o ns , ” ma k e “ e xp e nd i tur e s , ” o rs po nsor “el ecti onee ring co m m unica ti ons” i n exces s o f$3 , 000 to m ake r egul arfi nancial d i scl osur es to the S tat e Boar d of El e c t i o ns . S e e 1 0 I LCS5 / 9

- 1
. 8
. T he I l l i no i s El e c t i o n Co de d re w th e k ey d efin itio n s o f “c on tr ibu tio n,” “e x p en d itu re ,”4 N o. 11

- 3693

a n d “ e l e c t i o n e e r i n gc o m m u n i c a t i o n ” fr o m fe d e r a ll a w. T h e on ly su b st an tiv e d iffer en c es ar e th at th e I l lin ois di sc l o su r e r equi r ement s ( 1) co ve re l ec ti o n a ct i vi tyr el at i ng t o b a l l o ti ni t i a t i v e s , wh i c h ha v e n o fede r a la na l o g ; ( 2 ) do no t ex emp t fr o m r egul at i o n tho se g r o ups tha t l ac kthe “maj o rpur po se” of infl ue nc i nge l ec to r alc ampai g ns ; a nd ( 3) c ove r cam pai gn- re l ate d advert i sem ents that appear on the Inter net. The Centera rg u es thatthes e di ffer ences, an d a fe w o the rt e r ms i n the I l l i no i s s t a tut e , r ender i ts di sc l o su r e r eg i m e unc o ns ti tu ti o na l l y vague a nd ove rbr oad o n i ts f ace. To pre vai li n s u ch a f aci alchal l enge, a pla i nti ffm ust c ro s s a h igh ba r. A st at u te is fac ially ov erb ro ad on ly w hen “i t pr ohibi ts a s ubstanti alam ount o fpro tect ed speech, ” Un i t e dS t a t e s v . Wi l l i a ms , 553 U
. S. 285, 292 (2008 ), an d unc o ns ti tu ti o na l l y v ague o nl y wheni ts “ det er r en t effect on l egi ti m ate expre ssi on i s . . . bo th r ealand su bsta nti al

. ” Youngv. Am er ican M ini Thea tr es, Inc. , 427 U
. S. 50, 60 ( 19 7 6 ) (i nt erna l qu otation m arks om itted ). The dis tr i ct c ourtgr anted the st ate ’ s m ot ion to dism i ss, fi nd i ng tha t the Center c ou l d not m eetthes e s tandards. We a ffi r m.

I. Fa ct ual an d Pr oc e dural Backg r oun d T he Centeri s a Vi rg i ni a-base d § 50 1( c) ( 4) nonprofit or gani zati on whos e st ated m i ss i o n i s “t o pr o te cta nd defen d i ndi vi dualfr ee do m s an d i ndi vi dualr i g ht s g ua r an t e e d b y the U. S
. Co ns t i tut i o n. ” T o tha te nd, i tb r o a dcast s a dv erti sem ents, m ai ntai ns a w ebsi te, publi shes a w ee kly e-m ail n ew s l e tt er , pr od u c es a b i-w ee kly rad ioN o. 11

- 3693 5

In o ne T V spo t, for instan ce, the C en ter criticize d W est 2 V ir ginia A tt orney G eneral D arrel l M cGra w d u ring his 2008 re el ec tio n ca m p a ig n : A nn ou nc er: Th ey say yo u can ’ t teach an old d og new tricks. Tw enty- ei ght years ofc o n trov ers y and D arrel l M cGraw i s ati tag ai n, s pen di ng $ 10 m i l l i on f ro m a s et t l em en tm ea nt to he lp worke rs an d the e l der l y

— i n s t e a d, di v v y i n g i tup between hi s t ri al l awyer buddie s and a fund on ly controlled b y M cGraw
. The Whe e l i ng Intel l igen cers a i d,

“ L eg isl a to rs sh o u ld h a v e p u t a le a sh o n M cG ra w lo n g ag o .” B u t they say yo u c a n ’ t teach an old d og new tricks. Ca ll D a rr el l M cG ra w . T el l h im to re tu rn th e p eo p le ’s m o n ey . D k t. N o . 73 ; C FIF Launche s Pu bl i c Educat i on Ef f or ti n W
. Va. , You tub e , h t t p: //www . yo utub e . c om/wat c h? v= vP M wR2g M NTE (la st v isi te d A u g . 29 , 20 1 2 ). s h o w, a n d e n g a g e s i n o th e r f o r ms o fma s s me d i a c o mm u n ica tio n s. Its ta x ex em p t s ta tu s u n d er § 50 1(c ) ( 4 ) is i nc o m pat ibl e wi th pa r ti sa n po l i ti ca la ct i vi ty, s o the Center cannot endors e ca nd i dates or u rg e the publ i c to “v ot e fo r so -an d -so .” B u t a p ar t fro m a n ee d to av oid such “expre ss advocacy, ” in the l i ngo ofcam pai gn fi na nc e l a w, the C ente ra nd o the r§ 5 0 1 ( c ) ( 4 ) g r o up s enj oy f ai rl y wide l ati tude fro m the I RS. D u ringel ecti on se a s o ns , the Ce nt e r r un s a dv e r t i s e men t s tha t r e f er to th e p os itio n s o f ca n d i d a t e s o r to ba llotiss u es an d ca ll on th e a u d ien c e t o t ak e ac tio n s s u c h as co n ta c tin g c an d idates. 2 The Ce nterwished to enga ge i n si m i l aradvoca cy du ring the 2 0 1 0 e l e c t i o ns i n I l l i no i s a nd mad e pl a ns to ad d re ss “le ga l refo rm an d oth er j u st ice -re lat ed iss u e s ” in6 N o. 11

- 3693 ad vertisem en ts referring to inc um ben t officehold ers w ho were candidate s . B ut the C en ter feared that I ll inois’s n ew ly-a m en d ed ca m p aig n fina n c e la w s w ou ld req u ire it to re gi ste r as a “ pol i ti calco m m i tte e” and to disc l ose i ts e l ec ti o n- r el at ed ex pen di tu r es a nd i ts s i g ni fi cant c o ntributo rs. A ccord ing to the C en ter, its don ors requ ire as su r an ce s that th ei ri den ti ti es wi l lno t be di sc l o se d, a nd th i s an o ny m i tyi s a co ndi ti o n o fthe i rs uppo r t. The Center say s i t h ad no choi ce b ut to f orbearfro m i ts I l l i noi s “ i ssue advocacy ” in 201 0, so i ts pol i ti calsp eech w as chi l l ed by I l l i noi s’ s di scl osur e l aw s. These l aw s a re c od ified i n A rt i cl e 9 o fthe I l l i noi s El ecti on Code. A rt i cl e 9 i s l ong and fille d w i th the j ar gon o fc o n t e mpo r a r y U. S
. c a m pai g n fi n a n c e l a w

— “ el ec ti o nee rin g c om m u n ica tio n s,” “in d ep en d en t e x p en d it u re s,” et c . — whi ch w e de ta i li n P ar t I V o fthi s o pi ni o n. But A rt i cl e 9 ’ s ba si c provis ion s a re f ai rl y e asyto sum m ar i ze. Each pol i ti calcom m i tte e in I l l i noi s m ust r egi ste r w i th th e Bo ar d o fEl ec ti o ns , m aint ain r ec o r ds o fe ve r y c o ntr ibuti on r ecei ved and expend i ture m ade “in connecti on with” an e l ecti on, 10 I LC S 5/ 9- 7, an d file a re porto f allsuc h tran sact ions each qu a rter, 10 ILC S 5/9-10(b). T h i s qu a r t e r l y r e p o r tmu s ti n c l ud e th e t o t a ls u ms of c on tr ibu tio n s re c eiv ed an d ex p en d itu re s m ad e in the c o v e r e d p e r i o d; a c c o un t i ng s o fthe c o mm i tte e’ s fun ds o n - h a nd a n d i n v e s t me n ta s s e t s h e l d ; a n d th e n a me and add re ss ofea ch co ntributorw h o ga ve m or e than $1 50 tha t qua r te r . 1 0 I LCS 5/9- 11 ( a)
. In a ddi ti o n t o the quarte rl y r epor t, a pol i ti cal c om m i tte e m ust di scl ose any c o nt r ibut i o n o f$ 1,000 o rmor e ( al o ngwi ththe nam e a nd address o fthe contr ibutor) withi n fi ve days o fN o. 11

- 3693 7

The Boa r d o r a ny po l i t i c a l c omm i t t e e m a y a l s o s e e k i nj unc- 3 t i ve r e l i e fi n s t a t e c ou r tt o c ompe l c ompl i a nc e wi th Bo a rd or de r s or t o e nj oi n a n offe nd i ngc omm i t t e e ’ s o pe r a t i on s . 1 0 I LCS 5/9- 23 , 5/9-24. Fi l i ng f al s e or i nc om pl et e i nf or m at i on i n a cam p aig n fin a n c e rep or t m ay also co nstitu te a “b u siness offen s e” unde r the Cr i m i nalCode puni s habl e by c ri m i nalfi ne ofup to $5, 000. See 10 I LC S 5/9- 26. i ts re cei pt, or w i thi n tw o days ifr ecei ved 30 orfew erdays bef or e a n el ecti on . 10 I LC S 5/ 9- 10( c)
. Fo r re port ing vi ol ati ons, the Board m ay i ssue ci vi lfi nes o fno m or e than $5 , 00 0 f o ra ny o ne g r o up ( ex cept in the c as e o f“ wi l l ful and w anton” vi ol ati ons) , o r see k t o enj oi n vi ol ato rs ’ cam pai gn ac ti vi ti es i n sta te cour t. 10 I LC S 5/ 9- 10. 3 Can didate s’ cam pai gn o rg ani zati ons and pol i ti cal parti es ofco urse m ust r egi ste r as pol i ti calco m m i tte es. 1 0 I LCS5 / 9- 1. 8( b ) , ( c )
. Bu ts o t o o mus to ut s i de g r o up s a nd p r i v a t e i nd i v i du a l s i f, wi thin a ny1 2

- mon th pe r i o d, th e y a c c ep t c on tr ibu tio n s o r m ak e e x p en d itu re s in ex ce ss o f$ 3, 000 “ o n b eh al fo fo ri n o ppo si ti o n t o ” any ca ndi dat e o rb al l o t que st i o n. 1 0 I LCS 5/9- 1. 8( d) , ( e)
. Any enti ty othe r than a natural per son m ust a l so re gi ste r as a p olit ica l co m m i tt ee if it m ak es “in d ep en d en t e x p en d itures” o f m ore than $3, 000 w i thi n one yea r. 10 I LC S 5/ 9- 8. 6( b)

. I l l i noi s has l ar gely b or ro w ed fro m federa ll aw i ts defini ti on o f “el ecti onee ring co m m unica ti on, ” which m eans a r ad io, te l evi si on, o r I nter net b ro adcast that ( 1) r efer s t o a “ cl ear l y i denti fi ed” candi date, pol i ti cal party, o r bal l ot i ssue; ( 2) i s m ad e w ith in two m onths of a g en er ale l ec ti o n o ro ne month o fa pr i m ary e l ec ti o n, (3) is “t ar g e t e d to th e re lev an t e lec to ra te ,” an d (4) is8 N o. 11

- 3693

Ar t i c l e 9 e xp r e s s l y e x c l u de s fr o m t h i s d e fi n i t i o n a n y “ n e ws 4 s t ory, c om m en t ar y, ore di t or i al di s t ribut ed thr ough the f aci li ti es ofany le git im ate new s o rg a n izati on. ” 10 I LC S 5/9- 1.14(b )( 1). T he C en ter d oe s no t cha lleng e the reac h o r ap p licab ili t y ofthi s e xe m pt i on. unam bi guousl y a n “appealto vo te ” foro r aga i nst a candidate , party, o r bal l ot i ssue. 10 I LC S 5/ 9-1
. 14. 4 Fu nd s sp en t on e lec tioneering com m un ications th at are coo rdi nated with a pol i ti calco m m i tte e a re t re ate d as contr ibuti ons to that com m i tte e, wh i l e uncoo rdi nated e l e c t i o ne e r i ngc o mm un i c a t i o ns a r e c o ns i de r e d ind e pe nd

ent e xpend i ture s. S ee 10 I LC S 5/ 9- 1. 15. The Center ar gues that fi ve ofA rt i c l e 9 ’ s defi ni ti ons

— “e lec tio n ee rin g c om m u n ica tio n s,” “p olit ica l co m m itt ee ,” “c on tr ibu tio n, ” “ expend i ture, ” and “ind epe n d en t e x p en d itu re ”

— a r e f a c i a l l y v a g ue a nd o v e rb r o a d. I n J uly 2 010, the Cente r b rought s uitag ai nst the I l l i noi s Attor ney Generalan d m em ber s o fthe I l l i noi s S tat e Boar d ofEl ecti ons i n thei r offi ci alc ap ac i ti es, se e Ex par t eYoung, 20 9 U
. S. 123 (1908), seeking to invalidat e an d enj oin A rticl e 9’s di sc l osur e r equi r ement s as unc o ns ti tu ti o na lr es tr i ct i o ns o ffr ee s pee ch

. Af te rthe di st r i ctc o ur t den i ed th e Center’ s m oti on fora prelim i naryi nj uncti on, 73 5 F. S up p. 2d 99 4 ( N
. D. I l l

. 20 10) , and th is c ourtdeni ed its r e qu est for an inj un ction p en d ing ap p eal, the C en ter’s app ea l w as dism i sse d by a gr eem ent without prej ud i ce. I n J anua r y 2 01 1, the Ce nt erfi l ed an a m en ded co m pl aint co ntainingthe s ame a l l eg at i o ns b utt ak i ngi nt o a cc o unt changes to A rt i cl e 9 thatto ok effect on Ja n u ar y 1 , 20 11. The s t a t e mo v e d t o di s mi s s , a nd the Ce nt e rmo v e d forN o. 11

- 3693 9

su m m ary j udg m en t. The pa r ti es di d not di spu te a ny m aterial facts. T he d istri ct court d en ied the C e nt er’s m otion for su m m ary j ud gm en t a nd grante d the sta te’s mot i o n t o di s mi s s . T hi s a pp e a lf o l l o we d.

II. St andi ng W e be gi n, as w e m u st, with the st ate ’ s a rgum ent that th e C en te r lac ks st an d in g t o b rin g a co n st itu tio n al c h all enge aga i nst Arti cl e 9
. A l thou gh t he st ate di d not r ai se th i s i ssue i n the dist ri ct c ourt, st anding i s a j uri sdic ti onal re q u ire m en t th atis n ot s u b j ec t t o w aiv er . U nited Sta tes v. Hays , 515 U .S. 73 7, 74 2 (1 99 5); Nat i onal O rg. f orWom e n, Inc . v. Sch eidler, 510 U
. S. 249, 255 (1994 ). The s ta ndi ngr equi r em en t o fArt i cl e I I Ii s par t o fthe r es tr i ct i o n o fthe fede r alj udi ci al powe rt o “ Cas es ” an d “C on tr ov er sie s.” U .S. C on st . art . I II, § 2; A rizona Chr i s t i an Sc hool Tui t i on O rg. v. Wi nn , 131 S. C t. 1436 , 1441-42 (2011). Consti tuti onalst anding i m poses thr ee cor e r equi re m ents: Fir st, th e p lain tiff m u sth av e s u ffer ed an “inj u ry in fact “

— a n i nv a s i o n o fa l e g a l l y p r o t e c t e d int e r e st whi chi s ( a) c o nc r et e an d pa rticul ar i ze d, a nd (b ) “a c tu al or im m in en t, n ot‘co nj ec tu ra l’ or ‘h yp ot h et ical

. ’ ” S eco nd , there m ust be a causalco nnecti on betw een the inj ury an d the c o n d u ct com p lai ne d of

— th e i nj ury has to be “f ai rl y . . . tr ace[ abl e] to th e c h allen ge d ac tio n of th e d efe n d an t, an d n ot
. . . th [e] re su lt [ of ] the i nd ependent acti on o fso m e thi rd party no t b e f o r e the c o urt
. ” T hi r d, i tmus tb e “ l i k e l y, ” a s o pp os ed to m er ely “s p ec u lat ive ,” th atth e inj u ry w ill b e “ re d re ss ed by a fav or ab le d ec isio n .”10 N o. 11

- 3693

Se e al s o A C L U of Il l i n oi s v. A lv arez , 67 9 F .3d 583 , 59 0-91 ( 7th 5 Ci r. 20 12 ) ( “To s at i s fy the i nj ur y- i n- f ac tr equi re m en ti n a pre en f or c em en tac t i on, th e pl ai nt i ffm us ts how ‘ an i nt en t i on t o e nga ge i n a c our s e ofc onduc tar guabl y a ffec t ed wi th a 

### (continued...) Id. at14 42, quoting Lujan v. D ef enders of Wil dlif

e, 504 U
. S. 555, 56 0- 61 ( 1992 )
. On app eal, the sta te conte nd s that the Centerl acks sta nd i ng be cause i t has nei th er bee n subj ect to any past r e g u l a t i o n

— i t has notbee n or dered to r egi ste r as a pol i ti calco m m i tte e, thr eat ened w i th sa ncti ons, o r nam ed i n a B oa rd co m pla i nt

— nor“dem onst ra te[ d] a ny probabi l i ty that i ts speech wil ltr i gge r A rt i cl e 9 ’ s r egi str ati on an d r epo r tingr equi r ement s” in th e futur e. W e co ns true th i s ar g um en t as a c ha l l en g e to the Ce nt er ’ s i nj ur y - i nf ac t sh o wi ng . ( The s ta te do es no t que st i o n whe th erthe tr ac ea b ility an d red re ss ab ility p ro n gs are sa tis fied h er e.) I t i s wel lse ttl ed that pre- enf or cem ent c hal l enges to gov er nm ent r egul ati ons can be A rt i cle I I Icas es orco ntro
ve rs ies
. Bandtv. Vi l l ageof Wi nne t ka , 61 2 F .3d 6 47, 64 9 (7th C ir . 2010). A pl aint i ff“ do es no t ha ve t o a wai t th e consum m ati on o fthr eat ened i nj ury to ob ta i n preve nti ve re l i ef

. ” Babb i t tv. U ni t e d F ar m Worke rs N a t’ l U ni on , 442 U
. S. 28 9, 29 8 ( 1979 ) , quot ing P enn sylv a nia v. West Virg in ia , 2 6 2 U. S
. 5 5 3 , 5 9 3 ( 1 9 2 3 )
. T o s a t i s fy th e i nj ury- i n-f act re quir em ent in a pr e- enf or cem en t chal l enge, th e p lain tiff m u stsh ow on ly th atsh e fa c es “a rea list ic dan g ero fsus taining a di r ec t i nj ur y a s a r es ul t o fthe sta tute’ s o perat i on o r enf or cem ent. ” Id. 5N o. 11

- 3693 11



### (...continued) c ons t i t ut i ona l i nt er es t, butp ros c ribed by a s t atut e, an d [th a t] th er e e xi sts a c re d ib le threat of p ro se cu tio n th er eu n d er .’ ” ), quo t i ng B ab b itt, 442 U.S
. at 298. Se e al s o D o m brow skiv. Pfister, 380 U.S
. 479, 486- 87 ( 1965) 6 ( “Bec ause ofthe s ensi ti ve nature ofcons ti tuti onall y protect ed exp ression , w e ha v e no t req u ired tha t all of tho se sub ject to ove rbr oad r eg ul at i ons ri s k pr os ec ut i on t o t es tthe i r ri ght s . For fre e ex pre s s i on oft ra ns c en dentval ue t o a l l s oc i ety, an d not m erely to tho se exercisin g their rig hts

— m ig h t b e t h e lo se r. . . . W e h a ve f a s hi on e d .

. . ex c e pt i on [ s ] t o the us ua l r ul e s g ov er ni ng s t andin g . . . be c aus e ofthe dang eroft ol er at i ng, i n the area o f F ir stAm endm ent freedom s, the ex is tenc e ofa penal st atute s usc ep tible ofs w eeping and im prop er appli cat ion. ”) (in te rn a l ci ta tio n s a n d qu o ta tio n m a rk s o m itt ed ). The i nj ury- i n-f act sta nd ard is o ften s ati sfi ed i n preen f o r ce m en t ch al l en g es t o l i m i ta ti o ns o n s pee ch

. The Suprem e Cour t has r eco gni zed “s el f

- censo rs hi p” as a distin c t “ harm thatcan be r eal i zed ev en witho ut an actualpro secuti on. ” Vi rgi n i a v. Ame r i c an Bo oks e l l e rs As s’ n , 484 U .S. 38 3, 39 3 ( 1988 )
. The chi l l ing o fpro tect ed speech 6 m ay t h u s alon e q u alify as a c og n iza b le A rt icle II I i nj ury, p r o v i de d the p l a i nt i ff s “ ha v e a l l e g e d a n a c tua l and w el l

- f ounded fearthatthe l aw wil l be enf or ced aga i nst them

. ” Id. T he Ce nt er has m ad e thi s s h ow ing. I t has a history o fb r o adc as ting m es sa g es c o nc erni ngpub l i c po l i cya nd pol i ti calcandi dates acr oss the U ni ted S tat es. I t has al l ege d th atw h ile it w ish es to en ga ge in s im ilar ad vo c ac y in I l l i no i s, i t ha s cur ta i l ed i ts s pee chb ec au se i t fea r s be i ng12 N o. 11

- 3693

r egul at ed as a po l i ti ca lc o m m i tt ee . The Cen te r ’ s Pr es i den t subm i tte d an affi davi t s tat i ng tha t but f orA rt i cl e 9 , h i s o r g a n i z a t i o n wo u l d h a v e s p o k e n o u td u r i n gthe 20 10 I l l i no i s el ec ti o ns us i ng“ th e ty pi ca lf o r m o fi ss ue a d, ” tha t “ [ f ] un di ng wa s a v a i l ab l e , ” a nd tha t i t s “wis h to sp eak in I ll inois rem ained l ive. ” Th e C e n t er’s stand ar d i ssue advert i sem ents ar e run du ring el ecti on sea son, i denti fy a n i ssue ofpubli c pol i cy, gi ve concr ete exam ple s t o “i ll ustr ate the pol i cy” usi ng ca nd i dates wi thwho m the pub l i c i s f ami l i ar, a nd c al lo n the audience to ta ke som e “ acti on o therthan v oti ng, e. g. conta cti ng nam ed candid ates and enco urag i ng the m to continue ore m b ra c e the pol i cy. ” The Center ’ s typi cal i ssue ad s m eeteno ugh ofthe sta tutory e l em ents to quali fy, atl eas t a rguabl y, as el ecti onee ring co m m u n i catio n s u n d er Il lin ois law , an d th e C en te r w ou ld ea sily p ass th e $3,000 registration t h resh old. Th e C en ter’s self

censo rs hi p w as base d on an obj ecti vel y r eas onabl e, “actual [ , ] and well

- f ounded fearthatthe l aw wil lbe en for c ed ag ain st ” it
. A m erica n B o o ksellers , 484 U .S. at 3 93
. The sta te ass er ts that Wis co ns i n Rightt o L i f e, Inc . v. P a rad ise, 1 38 F
. 3d 11 83 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 8) , s how s t hat th e Cente rl ac k s a su ffi ci en tly wel l

- f o unde d fea ro fb eing su bj ec t to r egul at i o n. In th atc as e, we he l d tha t th e p lai nt iff d id n ot ha ve stan d ing to cha ll en ge W iscons in’s pol i ti calco m m i ttee reg i str ati on r equi re m ents because succes si ve advi sory o pini ons ofth e W i sco nsi n A tto rney Generaland re gul ati ons prom ulg ate d by the st ate el ecti on b oar d al re ady es tabl i shed that the defi ni ti on o f po l i ti ca lc o m m i tt ee di d n ot appl y t o g r o ups l i k e th e p lain tiff. Id. at11 85. These f or m aldeter m i nati ons byN o. 11

- 3693 13

Technical ly , the P aradis e ho ld ing w as on the re d ressab ility 7 prong rather than the i njury- in- f actprong of the s tanding rule. T h e o n l y r e a l p o t e n t i a l th r e a to fi nj u r y t o th e p l a i n t i ffc a me from private act ors, w hom the W is con si n st atute em pow ered to bri ng enf orcem ent sui ts i n st ate court agai nstunregis ter ed o rg a n iz a tio n s th a t r a n ille g a l ca m p a ig n ad v er tis in g . A p ote ntia l injur y fro m a d e c i sion b y a state co u rt in p riv ate li ti gati on w as not redres sable by a federal court ord er bec aus e a state c our ti s no tr equi re d t o a c c eptani nfer i or fede ra l c ou rt’ s de t er m i nat i on thata s t atut e i s unc ons t i t ut i ona lly ov erbro ad. W e the re f or e he l d thatthe thi rd pr ong o f A rt ic le III sta n d in g (re d re ssa b ili ty ) w a s n o t m et
. Id. at 1187. the s tat e a uthor i ti es m eant that th e p lai nti ff’ s fearo f p ro se c u tio n u n d er th e la w w as n ot“o bj ec tiv ely ‘w ellf ounded , ’ ” i d. , quoting A m erica n B o o ksellers , 484 U
. S. at39 3, th atthe l aws ui t w as an a tt empt “ to r es o l ve a c o ntr ove rs y that has notye t a ri sen a nd m ay neverar ise ,” i d. at 1187

- 88, and that the pla i nti ffther ef or e l acke d standi ng. 7 Thi s cas e i s qui te di ffer en t f o rthe r e ha s be enno det er m i na ti o n b y a ny I l li no i s o ffi ci altha t th e Cen te ra nd ot her such gr oups do notqual i fy a s pol i ti calco m m i tte es u n d er A rt i cl e 9
. The nam ed defe nd ants ar e the I l l i nois A tto r ne y Ge ne r a la nd me mbe r s o fthe Bo a r d o fEl e c t i o ns. They have notdeni ed that the Cente r’ s pasto ut- of

- sta te “i ssue ad s” coul d quali fy a s e l ecti onee ring co m m unica

t i o ns u nd e rthe I l l i no i s di s c l o s ur e l a ws . Unl i ke P a rad ise, ther e is a s uffi ci entl y r eal i sti c poss ibi l i ty that the Cente r woul d b e su bj ect to Art i cl e 9’ s r eg i st r at i o n a nd r epo r ting re q u i re m ents i fi t e ngage s in the type ofpol i ti cal ad vo c ac y it o f t e n d o es an d w ish es to in Illin ois . Th atis14 N o. 11

- 3693

en ou gh to es ta b lish th att h e C en te r h as an ob j ec tiv ely re aso nabl e fearof b eing subj ect to I l l i noi s’ s r egi str ati on and repor ti ng r eq u i re m ents i fi t e ngage s in i ts i ntended speech, and that the Cente r chose to avo i d those al l ege d b u rd ens. “S uch sel f

- censo rs hi p i n the f ace of p os s ib le leg al re p er c u ss ion s s u ffice s t o s h ow A rt icle II I i nj ury. ” Nat i onal O rg. f orM ar r i age v. M cKee, 64 9 F
. 3d 34, 48

- 4 9 ( 1 s tCi r . 2 0 1 1 ) ( fi nd i ngtha tn o np r o fi tg r o up h a d s t a nd

i ng to chal l enge sta te disc l osur e law s in pre- enf or cem en t ac tio n ); ac c or d , H um an Lifeof W ash. Inc. v. Brum si ckle, 624 F. 3d 990, 10 01 ( 9th Ci r. 20 10) ( sam e)
. W e fi nd that th e Cen te rha s Art i cl e I I Is ta ndi ngt o c ha ll en g e th e co ns t i tu t i o n a l i ty o fI l l i n o i s ’ s d i s c l o s u r e l a w.

III
. Sc opeof

Re vi e w: Fa ci al Chal l e nge N e xtwe mus tc l a r i fy the s c o pe o fthe l e g a lc ha l l enge be f o r e us . The Cen te rdes cr ibe s i ts s ui t as b o tha f ac i ala nd an as - a p p l i e d c h a l l e n g e , a r g u i n gth a tAr t i c l e 9 i s u n c o nsti tuti onal l y v ague and overbro ad “both f aci al l y a nd as appli ed to i nd ependent i ssue advocacygr oups such as CFI F. ” I t i s t rue that f aci alchal l enges and as- appli ed cha llen ge s ca n ove rl ap conce ptual l y. S ee D o e v. R eed, 13 0 S. Ct. 2 81 1, 2817( 2010 ) ( ackno w l edgi ng tha t pl ai nti ff s’ cl ai m “has char acte ri sti cs o fbo th ” as- appli ed and f aci al c h alle n ge ); Ric h ar d Fa llon, A s-A pp lied a nd Fa cia l C ha lleng es and Third-P a rty S t andi ng, 11 3 Harv. L. Rev. 13 21, 13 41 ( 2000 ) ( “[ F] aci alchal l enges ar e l ess cat ego ri cal l y di st in ct fr o m a s- appl i ed ch al l en g es tha n i s o fte n th o ught

. ”)
. But there i s a di ffer ence: W here the “cl ai m and the re l i efthat wo u l d f o l l o w . . . r e a c h b e y o n d th e p a r t i c ul a rc i r c u m-N o. 11

- 3693 15 sta nces ofthe[ ] pl ai nti ff s, ” “ [ t] hey m ust .
. . sa ti sfy [ the] sta nd ar ds f ora f aci alchall enge to the extent ofthat r each .” D o e v. R eed, 130 S. Ct
. at 2817 (2010). This i s no t a cas e where a g ro up has actu all y e ngage d i n a parti cul ar f or m of speech that i s subj ect to re gu lat i on and seek s t o chal l enge th e ap pli cabi l i ty ofthe l aw to i tse l fand other gr oups w ho have engaged in s i m i l ar ex p re ss ive ac tiv ity . C f. FE Cv. Wis consin R ight t o Life, 551 U
. S. 44 9 ( 2007 ) ( as- appli ed chal l enge to federa lst atute banni ng el ecti onee ring co m m unica ti ons bro ught by ad voca cy gr oup that had run TV advert i sem ents it be l i ev ed woul d b e co ve r ed bythe s ta tu te i f gr o up c o ntinue d t o ru n the m dur i ng6 0- daypr e- el ec ti o n b l ac k o ut peri od)

. H er e, the Cente r has no t br oadcast any c om m u n ic at ion s in Il lin ois , so i t w ou ld be im p os sib le for th is cour t t o f ash ion a r em edy ta i l or ed to i ts own part i cul ar s p e e c h a c t i v i t i e s a n d th o se ofs i mi l a rg r o u p s , f o rwe have onl y a ge nera li dea o fwh a ti t s h y po the t i c a lb r o a dcast s w oul d s ay. The Center has not l ai d the foundati on f o ra n a s - a p p l i e d c h a l l e n g e h e r e . We a n a l y z e i t s c l a i ms und erthe sta nd ar ds go verni ng f aci alchal l enges . Those sta nd ar ds set a hi gh bar

. I n re ver sin g a d eci si on str i ki ng down a sta te el ecti on l aw i n a f aci alchal l enge, the S up r e me Co ur te xp l a i ne d: Faci al chal l enges ar e disf avo re d for seve ra l r eas ons. Cl ai m s o ff aci ali nv al i di tyo fte n r es t o n s pec ul at i o n. A s a con s e q u e n ce, they raise the risk ofprem atu re in te rp re ta tio n of st at u te s o n th e b a sis of fac tu ally bareb one s record s. Facial challenges also run cont rary to the funda m en ta lpr i nc i pl e o fj udi ci alr es tr aint16 N o. 11

- 3693 that cour ts shoul d nei ther“’ anticipate a questi on o f const i tuti onall aw i n advance o fthe n ec es si ty of deci ding i t’ ” no r “form ula te a r ule o fco nsti tuti onal l aw broa d er than i s r equi re d by the pre ci se f acts to w hi ch i t is t o be a pp l i ed. ” As hwa n de rv . TVA , 297 U
. S. 288, 34 7 ( 1936 ) ( Brandei s, J
. , co ncurr i ng)
. Final l y, f aci alchal l en ges thr eat en to sho rtci rcui t the dem ocr at i c p r o c e s s b y p r e v e n t i n gl a ws e mb o d y i n gt he wi l lo fthe pe o pl e fr o m being i m pl ement ed i n a m anne rc o ns i st en t wi ththe Co ns ti tu ti o n. Washington StateGrange v. Wash. Sta te Republi can P arty, 55 2 U. S
. 4 42 , 4 50 -51 (2 00 8) ( so m e ci ta ti o ns , b r ac k et s, a nd in te rn al q u ot at ion m ar ks om itt ed ). In d et er m in in g whether a l aw is u nconsti tuti onalo n i ts f ace, then, “we m ust be c ar eful not to go b ey on d t he st atute ’ s f aci alr equi re m ents and specula te about ‘ hypotheti cal’ or‘ i m aginary ’ case s . ” Id. at 450, ci ti ng U nited Sta tes v. R a ines , 36 2 U.S
. 17, 22 ( 19 60 )
. W i ththe se pr i nc i pl es i n v i ew, we tur n t o the me r i t s o fth e C e n t e r ’ s f a c i a lc h a l l e n g e t o A r t i c l e 9
. We r e v i e w deno vo th e di st r i ctc o ur t’ s tr ea tmento fthe c o ns t i tut i o na lque s t i o ns p r e s e nt e d. E .g ., A nd erson v. M ilw a uk ee C ounty, 433 F.3d 975 , 978 (7th C ir. 2006).

IV
. Ov e r b re a d t h a n dV

o i d

- f o r - V ag u e n e s s C l a i ms Th e S up r e me Co ur th a s r e c o g ni z e d a p a r ti c ul a rty pe o ff ac i alc ha l l en ge i n the F i r stAm en dm en t co nt ex t und erwh i ch a la w m ay be s tr uck down enti re l y a s i m perm i ssibl y overbro ad. U nd er thi s o verbre adth doctr i ne, “a st atute i s f aci al l y inval i d i fi t pr ohibit s aN o. 11

- 3693 17

S ee , e. g. , C i tizens U n i te d , 130 S. Ct. 876 ( st ri king do w n federal 8 ban on el ec t i one er i ng c om m uni c at i ons by c or por at i ons an d labor unions bu t up holding disc los ure requir em ents as app li ed to s uch enti ti es ) ; M c Co nn e l l v . F EC , 54 0 U. S. 93 ( 20 03 ) ( s t ri ki ng do wn fe de r a l ba n onpo l i t i c a l do nat io ns by m i no r s bu tup hol di ng l aw’ s di s c l os ur e pro vi s i ons ) , ove rr ul ed i n p art on o th er g ro u n d s, C i tizens U n i te d , 1 3 0 S
. C t. a t 9 1 3 ; FE C v. M a s s a ch use t t s C itiz en s fo r L ife, 4 7 9 U. S
. 2 3 8 , 2 6 2 ( 1 9 8 6 ) ( s t r i k i n g d o wn re qui re m en t that c or por at i ons s et up s eg re gat ed fun d f or ind ep en dent expenditures i n connect ion with any federal electio n a s ap p lied to no np ro fitad v oca cy gro u p w hile p oin tin g a p p ro v ing ly to “d isclosu re p ro v ision s” tha t w ill 

### (continued...) substa nti alam ount o fpro tect ed speech

. ” United St at e s v. Wi l l i a ms , 5 53 U. S
. 2 85 , 2 92 ( 20 08 )
. The o ve rbr ea dthdo ct r i ne i s “ ’ str ong m edi ci ne’ ” that s houl d be “ em plo yed .

. . with hesi tat i on, and then ‘ onl y a s a l astr eso rt
. ’ ” Ne w York v. Ferber, 45 8 U
. S. 74 7, 76 9 ( 1982 ) , quoting Broad r i ckv. Ok l a h o ma , 41 3 U.S
. 60 1, 613 ( 1973 )
. A ccor dingly, co urts “vigorous ly en force[ ] th e requ irem en t tha t a statu te’s ove rbr eadth be s ub s t ant i al, noto nl y in an ab solute sense , but al so re l ati ve to the s tatute’ s p lai nl y l egi ti m ate sw eep. ” Wi l l i a ms , 55 3 U.S
. at29 2. Since i ts sem i nalm oder n cam pai gn fi nance deci si on i n B uc k ley v . Va leo , 4 2 4 U
. S
. 1 , 1 9 ( 1 9 7 6 ) , th e S u p r e me Court has co nsi ste n tly di stingui shed betw een l aw s that re str i ct the am ount o f m oney a perso n orgr oup can sp en d on p olit ica l co m m u n ica tio n an d law s t h atsim p ly re quir e di scl osur e o fi nfo rm ati on bytho se who spen d substa nti alsum s o n pol i ti calspeech affecting el ecti ons. 818 N o. 11

- 3693



### (...continued) “pr ovi de pr ec i s el y the i nf or m at i on nec es s ar y t o m oni t or M CFL’ s i ndepe nden ts pen di ng a c t i vi t y a nd i t s r eceipt o f co n tr ib u tio n s” ); C i tizens A gainst R ent C o n tr ol v. C i ty of B erkel ey, 454 U .S. 29 0, 29 8 ( 19 81 ) ( s t ri ki ng down or di nan c e c appi ng c ont ribut i ons t o ba l l oti ni t i at i ve co m m i t t ee s whi l e not i ng thatthe or di nan c e’ s di s c l os ur e re qui re m en t s wer e al one ade qua t e t o ful fill th e c i t y’ s i nf or m at i ona l i nt er es ti n kn owin g
“ w h o se m o n ey su p p o rt s o r o p p o se s a g iv en b a llo t m ea su re ” ); F irst Nation al B an k o

f B os ton v. B ell otti, 4 3 5 U
. S. 765, 790 n. 29 ( 1978) ( st ri king do w n M ass achuset ts l a w prohibiti ng corporati ons from m aking contribu ti ons or ex p en ditures to influence the outcom e ofi nit iat ives and referenda bu t not ing: “Identi fic at i on ofthe s our c e ofadve rt i sing m ay be re qui re d as a m ea ns of d i s c l os ur e, s o thatthe pe opl e wil l be abl e t o e valua te th e a rg u m en ts t o w h ic h th ey a r e b ei n g su b jec te d .”); B u ckley, 42 4 U .S. at 68 ( inv alid atin g fed era l exp en d itur e l im its b u t u p ho ld ing d isclosu re req u irem en ts, w hich “cer tain ly in m os tappl i c at i ons appe ar t o be the le as tr es t ri c t i ve m ea ns of c urbi ng the e vi l s ofc am pai gn i g no ranc e and c or ru pt i on th a t C o n g re ss fo u n d to ex ist ” ). U nlike contribu tion an d ex p en d iture li m its, disclosu re law s “ im p os e n o c eilin g on ca m p aig n -re lat ed ac tiv iti es ,” i d. a t 64, a nd “ do no t pr ev en t any o ne fr o m s pea k i ng .” C itiz ens U nited , 130 S. Ct. at 914, qu ot ing M cConn e l l v. F EC, 54 0 U. S
. 9 3 , 1 2 4 ( 2 0 0 3 ) , o v e r r ul e d in pa r to n o ther gr ou n d s, Cit ize ns U ni ted , 1 30 S. C t. at 913. Disclosu re l a ws a r e th u s a “ l e s s r e s t r i c t i v e a l t e r n a t i v e t o mo r e c o mprehensi ve re gul ati on s ofspeec h. ” Cit ize ns U ni t e d, 130 S. Ct. at91 5. Fo r that re aso n, the C ou rt d oe s not subj ect disc l osur e r equi re m ents to the s am e sta nd ar d ofN o. 11

- 3693 19

Se e al s o Doev. Re ed , 1 3 0 S . C t. 2811, 2818 ( 2010) ( “W e have a 9 se ri es of p rec edents consi dering Firs t Am endm ent chall enges to di s c l os ur e re qui re m en t s i n the e l ec t or al c ont ex t
. These precedents have reviewed s uch chall enges und er what has b ee n te rm ed ‘exa ct in g scr u tin y .’ ” ); B uc k l ey v . Am e r i ca n Const i t utionalL aw F oundat i on, Inc. , 525 U.S
. 182, 202 ( 1999) (“’ exa cti n g s c r u t i n y ’ i s n e c e s s a r y w h e n c o mp e l l e d d i s c l o s u r e o fc a mp a ig n -re la te d p a y m en ts i s a t is su e” ). st ric t s c ru tin y th atap p lies to co n tr ibu tio n a n d ex p en d iture l i m i ts but r atherto “e xacti ng sc rutiny, ” which re quir es onl y “a ‘subst anti alr el ati on’ betw een the di scl osur e r equi re m ent a nd a ‘ suffi ci entl y i m port ant’ go ver nm entali nter est
. ” C itiz ens U nited , 13 0 S
. Ct. at91 4, quoti ng B uc k ley, 4 24 U. S
. a t 64, 6 6. W e apply e xa ct i ng 9 scr uti ny to the Center’ s f acialchal l enges to A rt i cl e 9 , ex am ining w he th er the d isclosure req uirem en ts are su b s t a n t i a l l y r e l a t e d t o a s u ffi c i e n t l y i mpo r t a n tg o ve r nm entali nter est
. I n thi s ca se, the sta te i nter estatst ake i s that o f “p ro vi d[i ng] the el ecto ra te w i th i nfo rm ati on a s t o w h er e p olit ic a l c am p aig n m on ey co m es from an d h ow it i s s pent. ” B uc k ley, 42 4 U.S
. at 6 6 (inter nalquotat i on m arks om itted ). Th is “inform at ion al int erest” is suffi ci entl y i m port ant to supp or t disc l osure requ i re m ents. Se e, e . g. , id. at6 6- 67
. In B uc k ley, the Co ur tr e c o g ni z ed that cam pai gn fi nance di scl osur e was a cri ti cal to ol f or m ai ntai ni ng tr anspare ncy in the pol i ti calm ar ket pla ce: “In a r epubl i c wher e th e peo pl e ar e soverei g n, the ab i l i tyo fthe c i ti ze nr y t o m ak e i nf o r m ed ch o i ce s among candidate s for offi ce i s e sse nti al, f orthe i denti ti es oftho se20 N o. 11

- 3693

See als o Le t t e r fr om J a m e s M a di s on t o W
. T. Ba r r y ( Aug
. 4, 10 1 8 2 2 ) , i n 9 W ri t i ng s o fJ a m e s Madi s on1 0 3 ( Gai l l a r d Hun t, e d. 19 10 ) ( “ A p o p u l a rGo ver nm en t, withoutpopul ar i nf or m at i on, or the m eans ofacquir ing i t, i s bu t a prolog u e to a Farce or a Traged y; or p erhaps, both. K now le dg e will f orever govern ign or an ce: An d a p eo p le w ho m ean s to b e the ir ow n G ov ern or s, m u st a rm th em se lv es w ith t h e p o w er w h ic h k n o w le d g e g iv es .”). S ee , e. g. , cas es ci ted abov e i n note 8. 11 w ho a re el ecte d w i l li n ev itably s hape the cour se that w e fol l ow as a nati on. ” Id. at 14- 15. Dis cl osur e r equi re 10 m ents advance the pu bl i c’ s i nter est i n inf or m ati on by “ a l l o w[ i n g ] v o t e r s t o p l a c e e a c h c a n d i d a t e i n t he p olit ica l sp ec tr u m m or e p re c ise ly th an is oft en p os sib le sol el y o n the basi s o fparty l abel s a nd cam pai gn speeches

. ” Id. at 6 7
. B y re ve alin g “ th e s ou rc es of a c an d idat e’ s fi na nc i als uppo r t, ” dis cl o su r e l aws “ al er t th e vo te r to th e int er es ts to w h ich a ca n d id at e is m o s t lik ely t o be resp ons ive and thu s facil itate pred ictions of futu re perf or m ance in offi ce. ” Id. T h e Su p re m e C ou rth as rep ea te d ly re c og n ize d th is inform ational interest an d the u n iq u e rol e tha t d isclosure pla ys i n further i ng i t. Ou r cour t, too , has a cknowle dged 11 th e i m po r ta nc e o fdi sc l o su r e regul at i o ns i n pr o vi di ng “a d d itio n al in for m at ion u se fu l to t h e c on su m er ” o f p olit ic al m e s s a g i n g. M ajors v. Abel l , 361 F.3d 349 , 352 (7th C ir. 20 04 )
. In M ajo rs , we uphe l d an I ndi an a law re qui r i ng p o l i t i c a la d s t o i d e n t i fy th e p e r s o n s w h o p a i d f o rth e m: The avi dity with w hi ch candi dates f or p u b l i c o ffi ce s e e ke nd o r s e men t s i s e v i de nc e ( a s i fa nywe r e n e e de d)N o. 11

- 3693 21

T he state also in v ok es tw o o the r inter ests in sup p or t of A rticle 12 9, stating tha t d isclosu re law s bo t h p rev en t corr u p tion an d its appe ar anc e and en abl e en f or c em en t of othe r cam pai gn finance l aw s, s uch as th o se i m posing dollarl im it s on d ir ect co n tr ib u tio n s to ca m p a ig n s. Bu ckl ey rec ognized that d is cl osure requir em ents can adv ance these s ub st anti al int eres ts , as 

### (continued...) that the i denti ty ofa candidate ’ s s up po rt er s

— a nd opponents

— is in for m at ion th atth e v o t i n g p u b lic val ues hi ghl y. In area s of inquir y where l ogi c o r exact obs er vati on i s un avai l i ng, a speake r’ s cr edibi l i ty oft en d ep en d s c r u c ially on w h o h e is . A s A ris to tle said , “p ersu asion is achieved by the sp eaker’s perso nalchar acte r w h en the speech i s s o spoke n as to m ake us thi nk hi m cr edibl e. W e be l i eve go od m en m o r e fu l l y a nd mor e r ea di l y tha n o th er s: thi s i s true ge n er all y w h at ev er th e q u es tio n is, an d ab so lu te ly true wher e exact ce r ta i nty i s i m po ss ibl e an d op in ion s a re d ivid ed .” Id. , qu ot in g A ris to tle , R hetor ic, i n 2 The Com plete Works of Ar i s t ot le2152, 21 55 ( J onathan Barnes ed. 19 84) ; se e a l so Abram s v. U ni t e d S t ates , 25 0 U .S. 61 6, 63 0 (H olm es , J. , d iss en tin g) (“ O f co u rs e, th e id en tit y of t h e s ou rc e is hel p fu lto ev al uati ng i deas. ”)
. W e a gr ee that thi s i s a su ffici en tly i m p ortan t g overn m en tal int erest to su p p ort I l l i nois’s dis cl osur e r equi re m ents, and w e pr oce ed be l o w unde r th e ex ac ting - sc r ut i ny fr amewor k to e xa m i ne w he the r there i s a subst anti al r el ati on be tw een I l l i noi s’ s info rm ati onali nter est and the features o f Ar t i c l e 9 tha tthe Ce nt e rc o nt e nd s a r e o v e rb r o a d. 1222 N o. 11

- 3693



### (...continued) w el l. See 424 U
. S. at 67- 68 ( concl ud ing that “dis cl osure requir em en t s det erac t ual c or ru pt i on and a voi d the a ppea ra nc e of corrupti on b y expo si ng large c ontribu ti ons and expend itures t o the l i ghtofpubl i c i t y” and that“r ec or dkee pi ng, r epo rt i ng, an d di s c l os ur e re qui re m en t s ar e an es s en t i al m ea ns ofga the ri ng the dat a n ecessa ry t o de t ec tvi ol at i ons ofthe c ont ribut i on li m itati ons desc ribed abov e”)
. Because the i nf orm ati onal i nt er es ti s s uffi c ient to s uppor tI l l i noi s ’ s l aws , we do n ot reac h w hetherthe se otheri nter es ts al so s up port Arti cl e 9. Befo r e do i ngs o , ho wev er, w e b r i efl y de sc r ibe the Ce nter ’ s a l ternati ve theo ry, that cer tain provi si ons of A rt i cl e 9 ar e unconstituti onal l y v ague. Li ke the o verbre adth doctr i ne, the voi d-f or - vaguene ss d oc tri ne pro tect s a gainst th e il ls ofa l aw that “fai ls to p rovide a p erson of ordin ary i ntel l i ge nce f ai r noti ce o fwh at i s pro hibi ted, o r i s s o st an d ar d les s t h atit au th or ize s o r e n c ou ra ge s s er iou sly di sc r i m i na to r y e nf o r ce m en t
. ” F CC v. Fo x Te l e vi s i on S ta ti ons, Inc. , 1 3 2 S
. C t
. 2 3 0 7, 2 3 1 7( 2 0 1 2 ) , qu o t i ng Wi l l i a ms , 5 5 3 U. S
. a t3 0 4
. T he “ v a g ue ne s s do c t r i ne a ddresses atl eas t tw o connect ed but di scr ete due proc ess conce rn s: fi rs t, thatr egul ate d parti es shoul d know w hat i s r equi re d of them so theym ay act acco rdi ngl y; seco nd , pre ci si on a nd gui dance ar e nec ess ar y so that thos e e nfo rcing the l aw do notact in an arbi tr ar y o r disc ri m i natory way. ” Id. , ci ting Gray ne d v
. Ci ty of R o ck fo rd , 40 8 U. S
. 1 04, 1 08

- 09 ( 19 72 )
. In c as es wher e th e
“ s t a tut e ab ut s u po n s e nsi t i v e a r e a s o fb a s i c F i r s tAmen dm ent fre edom s, ” G ray ned, 4 08 U
. S. at10 8- 09 ( bra cket s om itt ed ), “rig or ou s a d h er en c e t o th os e re q u ire m en ts isN o. 11

- 3693 23

Se e al s o K ol ende r v. Law so n , 4 6 1 U .S. 3 5 2 , 3 5 9 n .8 (1 9 8 3 ) (“[W ]e 13 have tradit ional ly vie w ed v agueness and ov erb readth as 

### (continued...) necess ar y t o ensure thata m bi gui ty does not chi l lpro tect ed speech. ” Fox Tel e vi s i on Sta tions , 13 2 S
. Ct. at23 17. Ev e n un de rthe h e i g ht e ne d s t a nd a r d fo rthe F i r s tAmen dm ent, tho ugh, the potenti alchi l l i ng effect on pro tect ed ex p re ss ion m u stbe bo th “re al a n d su b st an tia l” t o in va lidate a st atute as vo i d fo r vaguene ss i n a f aci alchal l enge. E rznoznik v. City of Jacksonvill e, 422 U
. S. 205, 216 (1975 ). I n additi on, a “pl ai nti ffwh o en gages i n so m e co nd uct that i s c learl y pr osc ribed cannotco m pla i n ofthe vaguene ss of the law as ap p li ed to the con d uc t of oth ers . ” Vi l l age o f Ho ffm a n E stat es v. Flip side, H o ffm a n E stat es , 455 U
. S. 489, 495 (1982). I n s um , b o ththe v agu en es s an d o ve rbr ea dthque st i o ns i nv o l ve the s ame pr el i m i na r y i nqui r y i nt o whethe rthe st a t u te w ill ha ve a su b st an tia l effe c t o n co n st itu tio n ally p rotecte d activity: “I n a facial ch all en ge t o t he overb re ad t h a n d v ag u en es s o f a law , a co u rt ’s firs t t as k is to deter m i ne wh etherthe enactm en t re aches a s ubsta nti alam ount o fco nsti tuti onal l y pr ote cted co nd uct .” Fl ips i de, 45 5 U.S
. at49 4 ( f oo tnot e o m i tte d). If i t doe s no t, th en u n d er eith er th eo ry th e fa c ial c h alle n ge m u stfail. I n the First A m en d m en t con tex t, vagu en ess a n d ov erbre adth ar e tw o si des o fthe sam e coin, and the two so rt s o fc ha l l en g es a r e o fte n c o nc ei ve d o fa s “alter na ti ve a nd o ft e n o v e r l a p p i n g ” th e o r i e s fo rr e l i e fo n th e s a me c l a i m. Jor dan v. Pugh , 42 5 F
. 3d 820, 82 7 ( 10th Cir
. 20 05) (M cC onn ell, J
. ). 1324 N o. 11

- 3693



### (...continued) lo g ic a lly re la te d an d sim ila r d o ct ri n es .”); En t er t ai nm entProduct i ons, Inc. v. Shel by C nty. , 588 F. 3d 372, 379 ( 6th Cir

. 2009) ( “W hen a l aw i m plic ates Fir stAm endm ent freedom s, v a gueness poses the s am e ri s k a s ove rbr ea dth, as vagu e l aws m ay c hi l l c i t i ze ns fro m ex er ci sin g th ei r p ro te ct ed r ig h ts.” ); R ic h a rd H . F a llo n, Jr., M ak ing S en se of O v erb rea d th , 10 0 Yal e L. J
. 85 3, 90 4 ( 19 91 ) ( “Fi rst A m endm ent vag ueness doctr ine

— as dist inctfrom ordinary orn on - Firs t Am endm ent vag ueness doctri ne

— is b est conc eptua liz ed as a s u b p a rt o f F ir st A m en d m en t o v er b re a d th d o ct ri n e.” ); N o te , TheFirs tAm e ndme ntOve r br e a dth Do ct r i ne, 8 3 Har v. L. R ev. 844, 873 ( 1970) ( “w hen the Sup rem e Co urt has sp o ken ofthe f ac i al vagu en es s o f s t atut es t ouc hi ng fi rs tam en dm en t ri ght s , i th as s el dom i fe verbe enr efer ri ng t o a c ons t i t uti onal vic e differentfrom the l atentvagu enes s ofan overb ro a d la w ” ). The Ce nt er ha s pr es en te d i ts o ve rbr ea dtha nd vaguene ss cl ai m s a s o ne undiffer enti ate d argum ent, as se r tingtha t A rticl e 9 ’ s pr o vi si o ns a r e bo th“ va g ue a nd ove rbr oad. ” This i s not unu sual, se e H um an Life, 62 4 F
. 3d at 1 0 2 0 , a nd do e s no t c a l l f o r c r i t i c i s m. Th i s c a s e do e s not r e q u i r e u s t o p a r s e fi n e d i s t i n c t i o ns be t we e n th e t wo theo ri es. W hetherthe ar gum ent i s style d as o verbre adth orvagueness, the centr alquesti on in thi s f aci alchal l enge i s whethe rthe pr o vi si o ns a t i ss ue pot en ti al l y r ea cha “s ubs ta nt i al ” amoun t o fpr o te ct ed spe ec h. Cam pai gn fi nance di scl osur e r equi re m ents have exi ste d at th e federa ll eve lsince 19 10. S ee Cam pai gn Ex penses Publi ci ty A ct of 1910 , Pub. L. N o. 274, 36 Sta t. 82 2. The mode r n fede r aldi sc l o su r e r eg i m e was par t o ftheN o. 11

- 3693 25 F e de r a lEl e c t i o n Ca mpa i gn Acto f1 9 7 1 ( F ECA) , P ub

. L. N o. 9 2

- 2 2 5 , 8 6 S t a t
. 3 , a s a men de d b y the Bi pa r ti san Cam pai gn Ref or m A ct o f 2002 ( BC RA ) , Pub. L. N o. 10 7- 155, 116 St at. 81 ( 2002 ) ( codi fi ed as am ended at 2 U.S
. C. §§ 431- 34). Be cau se th e Sup rem e C ou rt h a s u p he ld FE C A ’s disc l osur e r equi re m ents, we need n ot i nvent the wh eel inth is c as e. In s t e a d , w e id en tify th e w ay s in w h ich Il linoi s’ s di sc los ure l aw i s br oadero r m or e v ague than FE C A an d th en co n sid er w h et h er ea c h d iffer en c e is c o ns t i tut i o na l l y p e r mi s s ib l e . Ar t i c l e 9 di ffe r s fr o m f e de r a ldi s c l o s ur e p r o v i s i o ns i n t wo s i g ni fi c a ntr e s pe c t s. Fi rs t, A rt i cl e 9 ex te nd s the di scl osur e o fexpenditures a nd c o nt r ib ut i o ns t o b a l l o ti ni t i a t i v e c a mpa i g ns . S eco nd , A rt i cl e 9 re gul ate s as a pol i ti cal com m i tte e any organi zati on that e xceeds th e d ol l ar - l i m i t s pend i ng thr esho l ds, whi l e unde rfed erall aw o nly tho se g r o ups wi ththe “m aj o r pu r po s e ” o f i nfl ue nc i ng e l e c t i o ns mus t r e g i s t e ras po l i ti ca lc o m m i tt ee s. In addit i o n t o the se s ubs ta nti ve d iffer ences, A rt i cl e 9 ’ s defi ni ti ons ofse ver alke y ter m s

— “e lec tio n ee rin g c om m u n ica tio n,” “e x p en d itu re ,” “co ntributi on, ” a nd “ind ependent expend i ture ”

— di ffer slightl y fro m thei r federa ll aw anal ogs . W e fi rs t anal yze t he two br oaderquesti ons on ba l l ot i ni ti ati ves an d the maj o r - pur po se t es t be f o r e turn in gt o the sta tutory deta i l s.

A
. D i s cl os ure s f

orBal l otIs s ueCam paigns 1. Co ntribu tio ns a nd E xp end itures I n I l l i noi s, i nd i vi du al s a nd gr oups m ust r egi ste r as “b al l o t i ni ti at i ve c o m m i tt ee s” whenthe y a cc eptc o nt r ibu-26 N o. 11

- 3693 ti ons orm ake expenditures i n supp or t ofo r i n opposi ti on to a ny que st i o n o fpub l i c po l i cyi n a m o unt s excee di ng $3, 000 i n a 12-m on th per i od. 10 I LC S 5/ 9- 1. 8( e)
. Fe deral l aw does notpro vi de f orbal l ot i n itia ti ves and refer enda, so F ECA c o nt ains no c o r r es po ndingr equi r ement s. The issu e h ere is w he th er this ad d iti ona l featu re of A rticl e 9’s d isclosure regim e is su bs t a n t ial ly related to I ll inois’s i nter esti n m ai ntai ni ng an i nfo rm ed el ecto ra te. E d uc ating vote rs i s at leas t as im p ortan t, ifnot m ore so , in th e c on te x t o f init iat i v e s an d refe re n d a a s in ca n d id ate elections

. In d irect de m ocrac y, w he re citi zen s are “resp ons ibl e for taking p ositi ons on s o m e of th e d ay’s m ostco ntenti ous a nd te chnic aliss u es, ‘ [ v] ote rs actas l e g i s l a t o r s , ’ wh i l e ‘ i nt e re st g r o up s a nd i nd i v i du a l s a dvo c at in g a m ea su re ’s d efe ator p a s sa ge ac t a s lob b yis ts .’ ” H um an Life, 6 2 4 F
. 3 d a t1 0 0 6 , quo t i ng C alif ornia Pro-Lif

e Counc i l, Inc . v. G e t m an , 328 F.3d 108 8, 1105 ( 9th Cir. 2003); see al so D oe v. R eed, 130 S. C t. at 2833 (S cal i a, J. , co ncurr i ng) ( “ Whe n a . . . v o t e r s i g n s a r e fe r e n d u m p e t i t i o n . . . , he i s ac tinga s a l eg i sl ator.” )
. In a n ini ti at i ve c ampai g n, “a verage ci ti zens ar e s ubj ecte d to advert i si ng bl i tze s o f dist or ti on a nd hal f

- tr uths and ar e l eft t o fi gure o ut f or them sel ves w hi ch i nter es t g ro up s pos e the gr eat est thre ats to thei r sel f

- i nter est
. ” H um an Life, 624 F. 3d at 1006 , q u ot in g D av id S. B ro d er , D e m oc racy Derai l e d: Ini t i at i ve C a m pa ign s an d th e P o w er of M o ney 18 ( 2000 )
. Becau se th e i ssue s ca n b e co m pl ex a nd the pub l i c deb at e co nfusi ng, vo ter s’ inte re st i n knowing the s ourc e o fm ess age s p ro m ot in g or op p os in g b allo t m e as u re s is es p ec ially sal i ent in such cam pai gns.N o. 11

- 3693 27

A cl as s i c s t udy ofvot i ng on i ns ur anc e- re l at ed ba l l ot 14 i ni t i at i v es c om par ed thr ee gr oups ofvot er s : ( 1) vot er s who kne w nothi ng aboutthe i ni t i at i ves ’ det ai l s b u t k ne w th e ins urance in du st ry’ s preferenc e, ( 2) highly i nf orm ed v oter s who c ons istentl y ga ve c or re c tan s wers t o de t ai l ed ques t i ons aboutthe s ubj ec tm at ter, an d ( 3) vot er s who kne w nothi ng a b o u tth e b a l l o tqu e st i o n o r a b o u tth e in su r a n c e in d u st r y ’s preferenc es . The fir sttwo grou ps ofvoters dem onst rat ed s i mi l a r v o t i n g p a t t e r n s , w h i l e t h e t h i r d g r o u p th a tw a s c o mpl et el y in the d ar k ha d ver y di ffer en tvot i ng pa t t er ns . The s t udy authorc onc l uded thatthe p os i t i on ofane c ono m i c gr oup wi th kn ownpr e fe r e nc e s o n an i s s ue c a n s e r ve a s a n e ffe c t i ve sho rtcu t f o r o rd ina ry v ote rs, sub stitutin g f or enc y clop ed ic inf orm ati on abo ut the el ect oral choic e. See Arthur Lu pia, Short cut s Versu s En cycl ope di as : Inf or m at i on and Vot i ng B eha vi or i n C al i f o r ni a Ins ur a nc eRe

f o r m El e ct i o ns , 8 8 Am
. P ol

. S c i
. Re v. 6 3 , 71 -7 2 (19 9 4 ). D isclosure law s are sub stan tially rel ated to t h e pu bli c’s i n t e r e s t i n i n f o r ma t i o n d u r i n g b a l l o t i n i t i a t i v e c a mpai gns. Rese ar ch shows that one of the m ost useful heuri sti c cues i nfluen c in g vote r behavi ori n i ni ti ati ves and referen d a i s know i ng wh o f avo rs o r opposes a m easu re . See E liza b et h G ar re t & D an iel A . Sm ith , V eiled P olit ical A ctors and C am paign D is closu re Law s in D irec t D em ocracy, 4 Election L.J. 295, 296-98 ( 2 005); M ichae l S. K an g, D em o cra tiz ing D irect D em o cra cy : Resto ringV o ter C o m peten ce Thro ug h H euristic C ues a nd “D isclo sure P lus”, 50 U C L A L . Re v. 11 41 ,11 57(20 03 )
. B ec au se n om in ally 14 i nd ependent pol i ti calo perat i ons can hi de behi nd “m i sl eadi ng nam es to concea lthei r i denti ty, ” M cCo nnell, 54 0 U
. S. at12 8, o ften o nl y di scl osur e o fthe sou rces of th eir28 N o. 11

- 3693

The M c C o n n ell Cour t gave e xa m pl es ofa few s uc h s t ea l thi l y- 15 nam ed grou ps, i ncluding “Citi zens f or Bett er M edicare , ” w hich

“ w a s n o t a g r a s s r o o t s o r g a n i z a t i o n o fc i t i z e n s , a s i t s n a me m i ghts ugge s t, butwas i ns t ea d a pl at f or m f or an as s oc i at i on of drug m anu factu rers . ” 5 40 U. S. at12 8. Si nc e the r i s e ofthe su p er P A C in th e w a k e o f C i tizens U n i te d , the us e o fn on de s c r i pt nam es by PA Cs act ing as proxie s f or s pecificcandidates has b e c o m e c om m on p lace. Fro m their n am es alon e, w ho cou ld guess that “ P ri orit ie s U SA Acti on” and “Restore O ur Future” were e ac h for m ed t o s uppor ton e ofthe m aj or c andi dat es f or p r e s i de n tth i s y e a r ? Or t h a t“A me r i c a n s f o r a B e t t e r T o mor r o w, To m or r ow” i s a s up e r P AC for m e d b y p olitical satir i st Ste phen C o lb ertto m ock the currents tat e ofAm eri can ca m paign finance l aw ? Se e Co l b e r tS up e rPAC SHH! — 5 0 1c4 D isc l os ure, T h e C o lb er t R ep o rt (A p r. 3 , 20 1 2 ), ava i l abl e at htt p://w w w .co lb er tn a tio n .co m /th e-c o lb er t-r ep o rt -v id eo s/4116 73/ april

- 03- 2012/ colbert

- super- pac- shh-

- - - 501c4- disc los ure. fu n d in g m ay en ab le th e e lec to ra te to as c er ta inth e id en tit i e s o fthe r e a ls pe a k e r s . S e e C itiz ens Agai ns tRe ntCont r ol v. C ityof B erkeley, 45 4 U.S
. 29 0, 29 8 ( 1981 ) ( i n ball ot m easu r e ca m pai g ns , “whe n i ndi vi dual s or c o r po r at i o ns speak thro ugh com m i tte es , theyo ften a dopt seducti ve na m es tha t ten d to c o nc ea lthe t r ue i den ti tyo fthe sou rce”). 15 T he Sup rem e C ou rt l ong ago ap p roved Con gress’s au th or i ty to re quir e federa ll obby i sts to m ake financi al disc l osur es because “ful lr eal i zati on o fthe A m er i can i de a lo fg o v e r nme ntb y e l e c t e d r e pr e s e nt a t i v e s de pe nd s to n o s m all ex te n t o n [C on gr es s’s ] ab ilit y t o p ro p er ly evaluate [ the] pre ssur es” to wh i ch it i s r egul ar l y s ubj ecte d. Se e U nited Sta tes v. Ha rriss , 347 U
. S. 612, 625 (1954 ).N o. 11

- 3693 29 Forthe sam e r eas ons, wh en I llin ois ci ti zens “act [ ] as l egi sl ato rs ” duri ng ini ti ati ve cam pai gns, se e D oev. R eed, 13 0 S
. Ct. at28 33 ( Sca l i a, J
. , co ncurr i ng in th e j ud gm ent) , the St ate r equi re s those wh o “att em pt to i nfluence l e g i s l a t i o n” b e i ngc o ns i de r e d o n the b a l l o tt o di s c l o se a “m o di cum o fi nf o r m at i o n fr o m tho se who f o rhi re at te m pt to infl ue nc e l eg i sl ati o n o rwho c o l l ec t o rs pen d fund s forthatpurpose”

— na m ely, “ who i s put tingup the mo ne y, a nd h o w much

. ” Se e Ha rriss , 34 7 U.S
. at62 5
. Thi s “e nabl es the e l ec to r at e to make i nf orm ed dec i si o ns and g i ve proper w ei ght to differ ent speake rs an d m essag es. ” C itiz ens U n i t ed, 13 0 S
. Ct. at91 6. S uch re gul ati on i s su bs ta nt i al l y r el at ed to I l l i no i s’ s i nt er es t i n pr es er ving an info rm ed ele c to ra te . A c c or d , Family P AC v. M cKe nna , 68 5 F .3d at81 1; H um an Life, 62 4 F
. 3d at 1008
. A l though the S up re m e Cour t h as not dir ectly pass ed on st at e d isc los u re req u ire m en ts for b allo t in itia tiv es , i t ha s di s c us s e d s uc h l a ws a pp r o v i ng l y . S ee C i t ize ns A ga inst R ent C o ntro l v. C ityof B erke l ey, 45 4 U.S
. at29 8 (stri king d ow n cap on contribu tions bu t not ing th at law ’s disc l osur e r equi re m ents adequatel y fulfi l l ed need f or in for m at ion in b allo t m ea su r e c o n te st s); Fi rs tNat ’ l Bank of Bo st on v. B el lott i, 4 35 U. S
. 7 65 , 7 92 n. 32 (1978 ) ( st r i k i ng dow n sta te l aw pro hibi ti ng co rpor ate con tr ibuti ons or ex pen di tu r es t o i nfl ue nc e r efer en da: “ I den ti fi ca ti o n o fthe sour c e o fadver ti si ng m ay be r equi re d as a m eans of di sc l o su r e, s o tha t th e peo pl e wi l lb e ab l e to e va l ua te the argu m en ts to w hich th ey are being su bj ecte d

. ”); Buc kl ey v . A m er ican Con st it utional Law Fo unda ti on, Inc. , 52 5 U.S
. 18 2, 202- 03 ( 1999 ) ( str i ki ng dow n sta te l aw re quir i ng p ro pone nt s ofi ni ti at i ve s to r epo r t th e na m es , a ddr es se s, a nd30 N o. 11

- 3693

e a r n i n g s o fa l lp a i d c i r c ul a t o r s , w h o h a d t o w e a rn a me badges w hi l e g ather i ng si gnatur es; di scl osur e r equi re m en ts r emai ne d i n e ffect to ai d v o te r s i n e va l ua ting m ess age s)
. These thre e ca ses st ro ngl y s ugges t that di scl osu re l aw s are sub stan tially rel ated to the sta te’s i nforma t i o n a li n t e r e s ti n th e c o n t e x to fb a l l o ti n i t i a t i v e c a mpai gns. To be sur e, r equi ring di sclosure i n the bal l ot i ni ti ati ve c o n t e x tma y b u r d e n F i r s tAme n d me n tr i g h t s i n t wo way s. F i r st, discl o su r e r equi r ement s m ayde te rc o nt r ibut i o ns o re xpend i tur e s b y s o me i nd i v i du a l s a nd g r o up s w ho w oul d pr efer to re m ai n anonym ous. See Buckl ey v . V a leo , 42 4 U.S
. at68
. S eco nd , “di sclo su re r equi re m ents can chilldon ations to an orga nization by exp osing d onors to re tal i ati on. ” C itiz ens U nited , 130 S. C t. at91 6; se e, e . g. , Brown v. Soc i al i s t Worke rs ‘ 74 Cam paign C o m m . (Ohio) , 45 9 U
. S. 87, 10 0 ( 1982 ) ( Fi rst A m endm ent pr ohibi ts sta tes from com p e llin g d isclosures of cam p aign fi na nc e inform ati on fro m m i norpol i ti calparty where ther e i s a “r easonab l e pr obab i l i ty” thati denti fi ed person s w oul d be su bj ect to “th reats, harass m en t, an d reprisals”). O n th e r e c o r d i n th i s f a c i a lc h a l l e n g e, h o we v e r, we m u st tr eatthes e bur dens as m odest. “[ D]i scl osur e r equir em ents m ay burden the abi l i ty to speak, but they i mpo s e n o c e i l i ngo n c a mpa i g n- r e l a t e d a c t i v i t i es, a nd do not preve nt any one fro m speak i ng. ” C itiz ens U n ited, 130 S. Ct. at91 4 ( ci tat i ons an d i nter nalquotat i on m ar ks om i tte d). The bur den ofpubli c i denti fi cati on m ay f or ecl ose appli cati on of discl osur e l aw s t o i nd i vi du al pam phlet eer s, se e M cInty re v . O hio E le cti ons Co m m ’n , 51 4N o. 11

- 3693 31 U
. S. 33 4 ( 1995 ) , o r sm al lnei ghborh oo d gro up s that r ai se l ess than $100 0, se e Sa m pso n v . B uesch er, 625 F. 3d 1247( 10th Cir
. 20 10) , f ori n thes e ca ses the sta te’ s inter esti n dis

sem i nati ng such info rm ati on t o vot er s i s at a l ow ebb. S ee M cIn tyre, 5 1 4 U. S
. a t3 4 8

- 4 9
. He r e , h o we v e r, the Ce nt er i s a f arc r y from the l o ne pa m phl et ee ri n M cIn tyre, an d i ts broad “interest in an ony m ity” doe s not j u s tify i nval i dati ng di scl osur e l aw s in a f aci alchal l enge b ro ught bya nati onalpol i ti caladvoca cy or gani zati on th at s eeks t o use the m ass m edi a in I l l i noi s t o sprea d i ts po l i ti ca lmess ag es o n a b r o ad sc al e. Tha t i s ex ac tly the sor t o fcam pai gn- re l ate d adv er tising ab out w hi ch Il l i noi s has a substa nti ali nter esti n prov i ding i nfo rm ati on t o i ts pu bl i c. Sim i l ar l y, the re cor d i n thi s f aci alchal l enge does not supp or t a ny pro sp ect ofr eta l i ati on that co uld ba r appl i ca ti o n o fArt i cl e 9. In D o e v. R eed, th e S u p r e me Court up hel d the co nsti tuti onal i ty ofa sta te l aw that al l owed f orpubli c di scl osur e o fpeti ti on s i gner s’ nam es an d a ddr es se s. The Co ur t he l d tha t d iscl o su r e o fthe n am es an d ad d re ss es of p et i t i o n s ign er s w ou ld n otord in a r ily c re at e a “re as on ab le p ro b ab ility ” t h atth ey w ou ld be har ass ed. 13 0 S
. C t. at 2820- 21, quoting B uc k ley, 42 4 U
. S. at74
. The sa m e r esul t a pp l i es he re . The Cente r has “pro vi ded us s cant e vi dence orar gum ent, ” i d. at282 1, b ey on d ba re sp ec u l a t i on, th atA rt icle 9 w ou ld be atall l i kely t o preci pit ate “threa ts, har ass m en t, o r re pri sal s” a g a i ns ti to ro the rs i mi l a r l y s i tua t e d a dv o c a c y g r o up s. Se e B uc k ley, 42 4 U.S
. at74
. A rt i cl e 9 ’ s a pp l i cati on t o contr ibuti ons and expend i ture s re l ate d to bal l ot i ni ti ati ves i s s ubs tanti al l y r el ate d to32 N o. 11

- 3693

The f ai l ure of th e Cen t er ’ s “br oad ba s ed c hal l en ge doe s no t 16 f orecl ose succ es s” on a future as
- app li ed chall enge to A rt ic le 9. See D oe, 130 S. Ct. at 2821. I l l i noi s’ s s tr ong i nteres t i n m ai ntai ni ng an i nfo rm ed e le c torate, and this i nt erest stron gly outw eighs an y bu rdens on pr ote cted s peech, atl eas t in the abse nce o f f acts thatm i ght b e o ffer ed i n supp or t o fa m u ch narr ower a s- appli ed chal l enge. 16

2. E lectio neerin g C o m m un ica tio ns o n B a llo t Issues A rt i cl e 9 al so re quir es gr oups to re gi ste r as bal l ot i ni ti ati ve com m i tte es w hen theysp end m or e than $3, 000 on e l ecti one er i ng co m m unica ti ons that advocat e foro r again st bal l ot i ssues . 10 I LC S 5/ 9- 1. 8( e)
. Thi s pro vi si on li kew ise adv an ces t h e s tate’s interes t in ensu ring voters ar e info rm ed abo ut bal l ot i ni ti ati ves. The Centerar gues that the r equi re m en t i m poses si gni fi cant b urdens o n s p e a k e r s b e c a u s e th e d e fi n i t i o n o fe l e c t i o n e e r i n gc o mm unica ti on does notad equately di stingui sh bal l ot i ni ti ati ve c ampai g n a dvo ca cyfr o m pur e i ss ue di sc ussio n. Th e C e n t e r ’ s a r g u me n tr e l i e s p r i n c i p a l l y o n t wo S up r e me Co ur tc a ses

— B u c k ley v . Va leo a nd FE Cv. Wisconsin R ight t o Life, Inc. , 55 1 U.S
. 44 9 ( 2007). The B uc k ley Court up hel d al lo fthe disc l osur e a nd r epor ti ng r equi re m en ts i n F ECA
. To a vo i d the regu l at i o n o fpur e “i ss ue di sc us si o n, ” th o ugh, th e Cou r t pl ac ed a na r r o wi ng co nst r u c tio n on th e t er m “e x p en d itu re ” “ to rea c h on ly fund s use d fo r com m unica ti ons that express ly ad vocate the e l ecti on o r d efea t o fa cl ear l y i denti fi ed candidate .”N o. 11

- 3693 33 B uc k ley, 424 U .S. at 8 0 (fo ot n ot e o m itt ed ) (em p h as is adde d)

. Thi s was the g en es i s o fa di st i nc ti o n B uc k ley ha d e ar l i erdr awn in the c o nt ex t of ind epe nde ntexpen dit ures between i ssue disc ussi on and e xpress ad voca cy . The l at te r, the Cour t s ai d, w o ul d ty pi ca l l y i nv o l ve the use o funequiv oca lwords and phrase s “ such as ‘ vot e f or, ’ ‘ el ect, ’ ‘ supp or t,’ ‘ castyo ur ba l l ot f or, ‘ Sm i th f or Congre ss, ’
. . . ‘ defe at, ’ ‘ rej ect’ ”

— a l i st that has co m e t o be known as B uc k ley ’ s “ m agi c words. ” Id. a t 44 n. 52
. F o rmany ye ar s t h e C ou rtad h er ed t o th e d ist in c tio n, b u t itrep ea te d ly em phasi zed that “the express advocacyl i m i tat i on . . . was th e pr o ducto fs ta tu to r y i nt er pretation r athe rtha n a c o nsti tuti onalco m m and.” M c Conne ll, 54 0 U.S
. at19 1- 92; se e al so Wis consin R ig h t to Lif e, 551 U
. S. at475 n. 71 ( pri nci pal opi ni on o fRobe rt s, C. J
. ) ( re i ter ating tha t B uc k ley ’s “mag i c wor ds” de fi ni ti o n “ do es not d i ct at e a co ns ti tu
ti o na lt e s t ” a nd the “ e xp r e s s a dv o c a c y r e s t r i c t i o n was an e nd po i nto fs t a tut o r y i nt e r pr e t a t i o n, n o ta f i rs t p rinciple of con stitut ional l aw ”). I n Wis consin R ight t o Life, the S up r e me Co ur t ’ s l ead opi ni o n he l d tha t the fe de r a l b a n o n c o r po r a t e a nd l abor d isb u rs em en ts for c am p aig n -re lat ed br oa d c as ts co u ld be a pp l i ed onl y to ad verti sem ents that w er e “ express adv o ca cy ” o ri ts “fun cti o na le qui va l en t
. ” 551 U
. S. at46 5, ci ti ng M cCo n nel l , 5 40 U. S
. a t 20 6. A br o adc as t i s th e “func ti o na le qui va l en t o fe xp r es s adv o ca cyo nl y i fthe ad i s s usceptibl e o fno re aso nabl e inter preta ti on o ther th an as an a p p e a l t o v ot e fo r or ag ain sta sp ec ific c an d idate. ” Id. at 469-70. W hile “[ c]ourts need not ignore basi c ba ckg ro und i nfo rm ati on that m ay be ne cess ar y t o pu t a n ad i n conte xt, ” id. at474 , “t h er e g en er ally sh ou ld34 N o. 11

- 3693 be no di sco ver y o r i nquiry in to the so rto fco ntextual f acto rs ” that would g o to ei ther the speake r’ s “ subj ecti ve” i ntent orthe l i kely “ effe c t” o fthe ad on the el ecto ra te, i d. at474 n .7. T h e C en te r c on te n d s t h atA rt icle 9 ’ s d efin iti o n o fe l ec ti o ne er i ng co m m uni ca ti o n i s i nc o ns i st en t wi th Bu c k l ey an d Wisco nsin R igh t to Li fe b ec au se it c on sid e r s w h et h er a b ro ad c as t re fer s t o a “c lea rly i denti fi ed questi on o fpubli c pol i cy that w i l l a p p earo n the b allot.” 10 I LC S 5/ 9- 1. 14. The Centercal l s thi s “ an i ntent- or - effect sta nd ard that r equi re s a j ud gm ent a s to ho w a l i st en er w i l lunde r st an d s pee ch, ” sinc e th e pu bli c d i sc us si o n o fc er ta i n po l i cyi ss ue s co ul d b e co nsi der ed di sc us si o n o fa b al l o t que st i o n. Fo r tw o re as on s, w e d isa gr ee . First, C it i z e n s U nited mad e c l e a rtha tthe wo o de n di s t i nc t i o n b e t we e n e xp re ss adv o ca cya nd i ss ue di sc us si on do es no t apply i n the disc l osur e co ntext. I n C itiz ens U nited , w h ic h c am e after Wis consin R ight t o L i fe, t he Courtexpl i ci tl y r ej ecte d the pl ai nti ff’ s a tte m pt to g r a ftth e e x p r e s s a d v o c a c y /i s s u e d i s c u s s i o n d i c h o t o my onto the const i tuti onalla w of cam pai gn fi nance di scl osure . 13 0 S
. Ct. at91 5. The Courtr eaffi rm ed that disc l osur e i s a l ess r est ri cti ve al ternati ve to m or e co m prehe ns i ve r egulatio ns o fs pee ch

. In B uc k ley, the C ou rt uphe l d a di sc l o su r e r equi r ement f o ri nde pen den t ex pen ditures ev en tho ugh i t invalid ate d a pro vi si on that i m po se d a c ei l i ngo n tho se e xpe ndi tu r es . In M cCo nnell, thre e J usti ces w ho would have fo und § 441b to be un con stit u t ion al none th eless voted to up hold BC R A ’s d isclosure an d disclaim er requ irem en t s . A nd the C ou rtN o. 11

- 3693 35

See Na tio n a l O rg . fo r M a rr iag e, In c . v . S ec ’y, N o. 11- 14193, 2012 17 W L 1758607, a t * 1 ( 11th Cir

. M ay 17, 2012) ( unp ub li shed o p in io n ); Th eRe a l Tr uth Abo utAbo r t i o n, Inc . v . F EC , 681 F
. 3d 544, 551- 52 ( 4 th C ir
. 2012) ; Nati on al O rg. f or M arri age v. M cK ee, 649 F .3d 34 , 5 4 -5 5 (1s t C ir . 20 1 1 ); H um an Li f e of Was h. Inc. v. B ru m sic k le, 62 4 F .3d 990 , 10 16 ( 9th C ir. 20 10 ). T he exc e p tion is the T en th Ci rc ui t
. I n S am pson v. Bu escher, 62 5 F
. 3d 1 24 7 ( 10 th Cir. 2010) , the court st ruck do w n disc los ure re quirem ents as app li ed t o a nei ghb orhood group thathad rais ed les s than 

### (continued...) has uph eld r egi str ati on a nd di scl osur e r equi re m ents on l obby i sts , ev en tho ugh Congre ss has no p ow er to ba n l o bb y i ng i ts el f

. F o r th es e r ea so ns , we r ej ec t Ci ti ze ns U ni ted’ s co ntenti on that th e disc l osur e r equi re m ents m ust be l i m i ted to s p eech that i s the functi onalequi val ent o fexpre ss advocacy

. Id. at 915 (citations om itted ). A ccord ing ly , m an d atory d isc los u re req u ire m en ts are co n st itu ti o n ally p er m iss ible ev eni fa ds co nt ain no di r ec t ca ndi dat e adv o ca cya nd “onl y per tain to a com m er ci altr an sa c ti on. ” Id. at 915. W hatev erthe sta tus of the expre ss advocacy/i ssue discussi on di stincti on m ay be in other ar eas o fcam pai gn fin an c e la w , Cit ize ns U ni t e d left n o d o ub t tha t d isclosure r e qu i r e men t s n e e d n o th e w t o i tt o s ur v i v e F i r s tAmen dm en t s c ru tin y. W ith j u ston e e x c e p tio n, eve ry circ u it that has r evi ew ed Fi rs t Am endm ent c hallen ges to di scl osur e r equi re m ents si nce Citizen s U ni t e d has co ncl ud ed that such l aw s m ay const i tuti onally coverm or e than j us t ex pr es s adv o ca cya nd i ts func ti o na le qui va l en ts , a nd i n e a c h c a s e th e c o u r tu p h e l d th e l a w. 1736 N o. 11

- 3693



### (...continued) $1 , 00 0 t o o ppos e ann ex at i on. I n New M exi co Y ou th O rgan ized v. He r r e ra , 6 1 1 F
. 3d 669, 677 n. 4 ( 10th Cir

. 2010) , the court i nval i dat ed s t at e d iscl os ur e re qui re m en t s as appl i ed t o a non pro fi t bec aus e i t bel i eve d “that f or a re gul at i on of c a mp a i g n r e l a t e d s p e e c h t o b e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i tm u s tb e u n a mbiguo usl y cam paign rel ated. ” Her re ra w as decided and argu ed after C i tizens U n i te d , butb riefi ng h ad be enc om pl et ed pr i or t o the Su pre m e Cour t ’ s dec i s i on. The on l y re ferenc e t o Ci t iz e ns U ni t ed w as a brie fs tat em ent in a f ootnote that“[ a] lthoug h that opinion l eft m any is sues unres olved, w e be lie ve that requir em en t

— tha tf ora r e gu l a t i ono fc a m pa ign rel a t e d s pe e c h t o be consti tuti onal i t m ust be unam biguo usl y cam paign rel ated sta n d a r d [sic ]

— as i t pert ains to thi s cas e has not been changed

. ” Id. at 677 n. 4. S ec o nd, e ve n i fdi sc l o su r e r equi r ement s wer e co ns ti tu
t i o na l l y a pp l i c ab l e o nly t o e xp r e s s a dv o c a c y a nd i ts fun ctiona l eq uivalen t, I ll inois’s d efi nition of “el ection eerin g c om m u n ica tio n ” is lim ite d by lan gu ag e n ea r ly i denti calto that us ed i n Wis consin R ight t o Life to d efi ne th e fun ctiona l eq uivalen t o f ex p ress ad voca cy. Com p are 10 I LC S 5/ 9- 1. 14 ( the b ro adcast m us t b e “ susceptibl e t o no r e a s o nab l e i nt e r pr e t a t i o n o the rtha n a s a n a pp e a lto vo te for or ag ain sta c lea rly id en tif i e d c a n d id at e, . . . a p olit ica l p ar ty , or a q u es tio n of p u b lic p olic y th atw ill a p p e a ro n th e b a l l o t ” ) , wi th Wis consin R ight t o Life, 55 1 U.S. at6 69

- 70 ( pr i nc i palo pi ni o n) ( “a c o ur t sh o ul d fi nd that an ad i s the functi onalequ i val ent o fexpre ss ad vo c ac y on ly if th e a d is su sc ep tib le of n o re as on ab le i nter preta ti on o therthan as an appealto vo te f oro r a g a in st a sp ecifi c can d idat e”). M oreover, A rticl e 9’sN o. 11

- 3693 37

Com par e 2 U. S. C. § 43 4( f ) ( 3) ( A) ( “a ny br oadc as t, c abl e or 18 s at el l i t e com m uni c at i on” ) , with 1 0 I LCS 5 / 9- 1. 14 ( a) ( “a ny bro adc as t, c abl e, or sate l l i t e c om m uni c at i on, i nc l udi ng r adi o, te le v isi o n, or In te rn et co m m u n ic a tio n ” ). Co m pare 2 U.S. C. § 434( f ) ( $10, 000 tr iggers report ing re quire- 19 m en ts ) , w ith 10 ILCS 5/9- 8. 6 ( $3, 000 tr iggers report ing re quirem en ts). Com par e 2 U. S. C. § 43 4( f ) ( 3) ( A) ( i ) ( I I ) ( appe ar s withi n 6 0 da ys 20 ofa general el ect ion or 30 day s ofa prim ary) , w ith 10 ILCS 5/9- 1 .14 (a )(2) (sa m e). Com par e 2 U .S. C. § 43 4( f ) ( 3) ( A) ( i ) ( I I I ) ( “i s t ar ge t ed t o the 21 re le v a n t e le ct o ra te ” ), w ith 10 IL C S 5/9 -1 .14 (a )(3) (sa m e). C om p are 2 U .S .C
. § 43 4(f) (3)( A )( i)( I) (“refers to a clea rly 22 i dent i fi ed c an d id ate ”) , with 1 0 I LCS 5 / 9- 1. 14 ( a) ( 1) ( “r efer s t o a c l ea rl y i dent i fi ed c andi dat e, ” “ pol i t i c al par t y, ” o r “ques t i on ofpubl i c pol i c y tha t wil l appe ar onthe bal l ot ”) ( num ber i ng o m itt ed ). d efin itio n tra c ks B C R A ’ s i n ev er y re sp ec t, as ea c h is lim ited bythe sam e fi ve f acto rs : ( 1) bym edi um , ( 2) by 18 tot al am ount spent, ( 3) tem pora l l y, ( 4) ge ogr aphica l l y, 19 20 21 an d ( 5) by cont e n t
. A lthou gh there are som e d if

22 fe r e n c e s wi th th e fe d e r a ls t a tu t e ’ s d e fin i t i o n, w hi c h we con si der b el ow in Se cti on I V. C, the point i s that Arti cl e 9 i s ca re fully dra w n to tr ack a defi ni ti on a l re ady approv ed b y th e Su p re m e C ou rtinWisconsin R ight t o Life

. Even i f di s c l o s ur e r e qu i r e men t s c o ul d r e a c h o nly s o f a r as express advoca cy orit s functi onalequi val ent, o n i ts f ace, A rt i cl e 9 r egul ates no m or e than that and so i s no t f a c i a l l y o v e rb r o a d.38 N o. 11

- 3693 3. V agu eness The Center’ s fi nal concern about A rt i cl e 9’ s reg ula ti on o fb al l o t i ni ti at i ve a ct i vi tyi s th ati t is tr i g g er ed byc o ntr ibuti ons orexpenditures r ecei ve d o r m ade “with th e p urp ose of secu ring a p lace on the ballot fo r , [or] advocat i ng the defeato r passag e o f ” a ny ba l l ot i ni ti ati ve, “r ega rdl ess o fwh etherpeti ti ons have been ci rcul ate d o rfi l ed with the a ppr o pr i at e o ffi ce o rwhethe rthe que st i o n h a s b e e n a d o p t e d a n d c e r t i fi e d b y the gov er ni ng bo dy. ” 1 0 I LC S 5/ 9- 1. 8( e)
. The Centerfi rs t ar gues that the “ i n supp or t o fo r i n oppo siti on t o” l an g ua g e i s va g ue . In M cCo nnell, how ever, the C ou rt f o und tha t verys i m i l arl an g ua g e was no t unc o ns ti tu
ti onal l y v ague. S ee 540 U
. S. at17 0 n. 64 ( “T h e w or ds ‘ prom ote , ’ ‘ o pp o s e , ’ ‘ a t t a c k, ’ a nd ‘ s up po r t ’ c l e a r l y s e tf o r th th e con fine s w ithin w hich pot en tial p arty sp eakers m ust a ct in or der t o avo id tri gge ring the pro vi si on. These w or d s ‘p ro vid e e x p licitst an d ar d s fo r th os e w h o a p p ly them ’ and ‘ gi ve t h e perso n ofo rdi naryi ntel l i gence a reas o na ble opp ortu nity to know w ha t is p rohibited

. ’ ”), quoti ng G ray ned v. C ityof R o ck fo rd, 40 8 U.S
. 10 4, 10 8- 09 (1 9 72). Th is part of M cCo nnellrem ains valid after Cit ize ns U nited , and i t for ecl ose s the Center ’ s a rgum ent that su bs ec ti o n 1
. 8( e) ’ s su ppo r t/ o ppo si ti o n l an g ua g e i s unc o ns t i t u tio n ally va gu e. A c c or d , Nat i onal O rg. f orM ar r i age, 6 4 9 F
. 3 d a t 6 2

- 6 4 ( r ej e c t i ng v a g ue ne s s c ha l l e ng e t o term s “p rom oting,” “sup p ort,” an d “op p ositi on” ). The Ce nt era l so con ten ds th atthe de fi ni ti o n i s va g ue because i t co uld appl y t o advocacyo n any i ssue that m i ght o ne day beco m e the s u b j ec t o fa bal l ot i ni ti ati ve,N o. 11

- 3693 39

an d the st atut e “ pr o vi des no g ui dan ce . . . f o rde te r m i ni ng w hen such a pol i cy i ssue beco m es a r egul ate d ‘q uesti on o fpub l i c po l i cy. ’ ” F o re xa m pl e, a g r o up mi g hts pen d $3, 000 produci ng an ad that den ou nces hi gh sa l es taxes , onl y t o fi nd si x m onths l ate r that a s al es tax c u t wil lbe on the bal l ot as an i n itiati ve. The Centerar gues that und er A rt i cl e 9 , thatgr oup m i ght b e found to ha ve vi ol ate d the s tatute i fi t f ai l ed to r egi ste r as a ba l l ot i ni ti ati ve com m i tte e a nd m ake r equi re d discl osur es. C ou rt s d o n o t d e c i d e fa c ial c h alle n ge s o n th e b as is of such sp ecu lative hyp oth etica ls . A s the district cou rt obs er ved, cam pai gn- re l ate d bro adcasts ar e co nsi dered e l e c t i o ne e r i ngc o mm un i c a t i o ns o nl y wh e n the y a r e ma de w it h in60 d ay s o f a ge n er al e lec tio n or 3 0 d ay s o f a p rim ar y, “a t which point i t w oul d al re ady be kno w n i fan initi ativ e i s on th e ballot. ” A s for ex p en d itures th at are no tf o re l e c t i o ne e r i ngc o mm un i c a t i o ns ( f o re xa mp l e, g l o s s y ma i l e r s , b u mp e rs t i c k e r s , b u t t o ns , a n d o th e rc a mpai gn par aphernal i a) , A rt i cl e 9 ’ s defi ni ti on o f“ba l l ot i ni ti at i ve c o m m i tt ee ” i s qui te pl ainl y a i m ed atr egul at i ng gr oups thatar e e i th er cam pai gni ng in f avo r ofo r aga i nst actual bal l ot m eas ures o r acti vel y a dvocatin g or o p p o s i n gp l a c i n ga s p e c i fi c qu e s t i o n o n th e b a l l o t
. We have no r eas on t o sup pose the Boa rd would co nstr ue o r en f o r c e the p r o v i s i o n mor e e xp a ns i v e l y, s o we c a nn ot sa y th atth e d e f in itio n of ba llotinit iat ive co m m itt ee is substa nti al l y o verbro ad i n re l ati on t o i ts pla i nl y l egi ti m ate sw eep, se e U ni t e d S t at e s v. Ste ve ns , 13 0 S
. Ct. 15 77, 15 87 ( 2010 ) , o r that i ts “deter re nt effect on l egi ti m ate expre ssi on i s . . . bo th r ealand subst anti al

. ” Young v. Am e r i ca n M ini Theatres, Inc. , 427 U
. S. 5 0 , 6 0 (1976). I l l i noi s’ s r egul a-40 N o. 11

- 3693 tion of ex p en d itures for, cont ributions to, and electioneeri ngc o m m uni ca ti o ns abo utb al l o t i ni ti at i ve c ampai g ns i s no t f aci al l y o verbro ad orvague.

B. D e f i ni t i on of Pol i t i ca l Com m i t t e e : The“M aj orPurpose” Test The Center ar gues that I l l i noi s’ s di scl osur e r equi re m ents ar e v a g ue a nd o v e rb r o a d b e c a us e the y r e g ul a t e as p olit ica l c om m itt ee s gro u p s th at d o n ot h av e a s th eir “m aj orp u rp ose ” the el ecti on o fa candidate

. Recal lthat o u t s i d e g r o u p s a r e r e q u i r e d t o r e g i s t e ra s p o l i t i c a lc o mm i tte es i f w i thi n a 12- m onth peri od they m ak e o r re cei ve m ore than $3, 000 w or th o fco ntributi ons, expenditures , o ri n d e p e n d e n te x p e n d i t ur e s f o re l e c t i o n e e r i n gc o mm unica ti ons. S ee 10 I LC S 5/ 9- 1. 8, 5/9-8 .6(b). The Center co nt en ds th at S upr eme Co ur t pr ec ede nt st r i ct l y cabi ns re gul ati on o fp oliti calco m m i tte es to or gani zati ons that ar e “u n d er the contr olo fa candidate ” o r w hose “m aj or pu rp ose” is “the n om ination or election of a candidate

. ” Arti cl e 9 ’ s pol i ti calco m m i tte e pr ovi si on cove rs additi onalenti ti es, and thus, the Center conte nd s, the pr ovi si on i s f atal l y o verbro ad. W e di sag re e. Li k e th e ex pr es s adv o ca cy/i ss ue di sc us si o n di st in ct i o n, the Cente r’ s prop os ed m aj orpurpose tes t a l so has i ts o r i g i ns i n B uc k ley

. The Buckl ey C ou rt rev ie w ed FE C A ’s re port i ng req u i re m ents on pol i ti calco m m i tte es, wh i ch th e st atut e defi ne d a s “a ny c o m m i tt ee , c l ub, a ss o ci at i o n, o ro th erg r o up o fpe r so ns whi chr ec ei ve s co nt ributi o ns or m ak e s e xp e nd i tur e s du r i nga c a l e nd a ry e a ri n an agg re gat e a m ou n t e xceedi ng $1 , 000. ” B uc k ley, 42 4 U.S
. atN o. 11

- 3693 41 79 n. 105, quoting 2 U
. S. C. § 4 31( d) ( curr ent v er si on a t § 4 31 (4)( A )). A p ar alle l p ro vis ion of FE C A d efin ed “c on tr ibuti on” and “e x p en diture” as the “use ofm oneyo r othe r va l uabl e as se ts ‘ f o rthe pur po se of

. . . i nfl ue nc i ng ’ the nom i nati on or el ecti on ofcandi dates f orfedera lo ffi ce. ” Id

. at 77, q uoting 2 U
. S. C. § 4 31( e) , ( f ) ( curr ent v er si on a t § 431(8), ( 9)). In the con tex t of th is definiti on, the C ou rt c on c lu d ed th atth e d isc los u re req u ire m en ts co u ld p re se n t “v ag u en es s p ro b lem s, for ‘p olit ica l c om m itt e e ’ is defined onl y in ter m s o fam ount of annual ‘ contr ibuti ons’ and ‘e xpend i ture s, ’ and coul d be inter preted t o rea ch g r o up s e ng a g e d p ur e l y i n i s s ue di s c us s i o n. ” Id. a t 79
. To avo i d these line-drawingprobl em s, the Court const rued th e t er m p olit ica l co m m itt ee m or e n ar ro w ly: To fulfi l lthe purposes of the A ct, [ pol i ti calco m m i tte es] need onl y e ncom pass o rg ani zati ons that ar e un der the control of a c andida teo r t h e m ajo r pu rpo se ofwh i ch is th e n om in at i on or ele c tio n of a c an d id at e. E x p en d iture s o fcandi dates and o f“pol i ti calco m m i tte es” so con stru ed can be assu m ed to f all w ithin th e core ar ea soughtto be add re sse d by Congre ss. They a re , b y de fi ni t i o n, c a mpa i g n r e l a t e d. Id. (em p h as is a d d ed ). Th e C ou rth as refe rre d to th is n ar ro w in g con st ru c tio n in su b se q u en t op in ion s . Se e, e . g. , M cC o n nel l , 540 U .S. at 1 70 n .64 ; FE Cv. M assachus et ts C it izens forLif

e, 47 9 U.S
. 238 , 252 n. 6 ( 1986 ) ( plur al i ty opi ni on)
. The Centerdraws fro m this the concl usi on th at the F i rs t Am endm ent i m poses a bri ght- l i ne pro hib iti on a gainst a pp l yi ng di scl osur e r equi re m ents to a gr oup w hose “m aj orpurpose” i s o therthan the no m i nati on o r el ecti on o fcandi dates.42 N o. 11

- 3693

Se e al s o V

er m ontR ightt o Li f e C omm i t t ee, Inc. v. 23 S o rr ell , ___ F. Sup p. 2d ___, 2012 W L 2370445, at * 15 ( D
. V t. 2012) ( uphol di ng Ver m ontc am pai gn fi nan c e di s c l os ur e law s a nd concl ud ing that the “m aj or purp ose lim it ing cons tr ucti on w as t h e p r o d u ct o f a v a g u e st a tu te , no t o f th e F ir st A m en d m en t” ). Bu t s ee New M exi co Y ou th O rgan ized v. Herrera , 611 F. 3d 669, 677- 78 ( 10th Cir

. 2010) ( invali dating st ate disc los ure l aw as appl i ed t o o rg an izat i on bec aus e i tdi d not“s at i s fy the ‘ m aj or pu rpose’ te st, ” w hich “se ts the l ow er bound s f o r w h en regulatio n as a p o lit ic a l co m m itt ee is co n sti tu tio n a lly p er m iss i b le ” ); N or t h C ar ol i na R igh tt o Li f e, Inc. v. Lea ke, 525 F. 3d 274 ( 4th Cir

. 2008) ( concl ud ing bef ore C i tizens U n i te d thats tat e discl osure law v iola ted t h e F i rst A m en d m en t be cau se “an entity m u st have ‘ the m aj or pur pos e’ ofs uppor t i ng o r oppos i ng a c and id a te to b e d es ig n a te d a p o lit ic a l co m m itt ee ” ). The ar gum ent r eads Buckl ey t oo br oa d ly. Firs t, as is cl earfro m the quoted por ti on, the “m aj orpurpose” l i m i tat i on, l i ke the e xpress advocacy/i ssue disc ussi on di st i nc ti o n, was a c r ea tu r e o fstatu to r y i nt er pr et at i o n, not const i tuti onal com m and. Se e Nat i onal O rg. f or M ar r i age, 64 9 F
. 3d at 5 9 (“W e fi nd no re aso n to bel i eve that thi s s o- cal l ed ‘ m aj orpurpose’ te st, l i ke the o ther na r r ow in gc o ns truct i o ns a do pte d i n B uc k ley, i s any th i ng m ore tha n an artif act of the C ou rt’s co n s t ruc tion of a fed er al s ta tu te .”); H um a n Lif e, 62 4 F
. 3d at 1009

- 10 (“ B u c k ley ’ s s tat em ent .
. . does noti nd i cate thatan e nti ty m us t ha ve tha t m aj o rpur po se t o b e dee m ed co ns ti tu ti o nall y a p oli tical com m ittee.”)
. B uc k ley ’ s l i m i ti ng co nstr uc- 23 ti o n was draw n fo rthe s ta tu te b efo r e i t, a nd the Suprem e C ou rt has neverappli ed a “ m aj orpurpose” te st to a s tat e’ s r egul ati on o fpol i ti calco m m i tte es. S ee Nat i onal O rg. f orM ar r i age, 64 9 F
. 3d at 59.N o. 11

- 3693 43

I n I l l i n o i s ’ s 2 0 0 9 a me n dme n t s t o i t s c a mpa i g n fi n anc e l a w, 24 the le gis lature i m posed hard l im it s on the am ount polit ic al c om m i t t ee s co u l d ac c eptfro m an y on e i ndi vi dual, e nt i t y, or oth er p oli tical co m m ittee. 10 IL C S 5/9-8.5(d ). T he se lim its wenti nt o e ffec ti n J anu ar y 20 11 but were i nval i dat ed a s unc onstitutio na l as ap p lied t o no n-can d id ate, no n-p olitical p arty

“ po l i t i c al act ion c om m it tee s. ” See Pers onalPA C v. M cG uf f age, ___ F . Su p p . 2 d
__, 20 1 2 W L 85 0 7 4 4 (N .D . Ill. M a rc h 13 , 20 1 2 ). T he state d id no t ap p eal. For f our re aso ns, w e do not thi nk th is li m i tat i on extends t o I l l i noi s’ s di scl osur e r equi re m ents. Fi rs t, wh en Buckl ey w as deci ded , pol i ti calco m m i tte es f aced m uch gr eat erburdens und erFECA ’ s 1 974 am endm ents than I l l i noi s’ s di scl osur e r equi re m ents i m pose. Fo r i n sta nce, F ECA the n inc l ud ed h ard l i m i ts o n the s i ze o fc o nt r ibuti ons to pol i ti calco m m i tte es, and on h ow m uch they coul d contr ibu te to othe r pol i ti calco m m i tte es. S ee B u c k ley, 4 2 4 U. S
. a t3 5
. Whe n r e g ul a t i o n a s a p o l i ti cal 24 com m ittee enta il s a d he renc e to thes e and other m ore bur den so m e r equi rem ent s, the r e i s m o r e r o o m t o a r g ue th atthe maj o rp urp o se t es t m i g htb e ne ede d unde rthe Fi r s t Am e nd men t tha n whe n the l a w i mpo s e s o nly di sclosure obli gations
. For ins tan ce, the S u p rem e C ou rt i n M assach u set ts Citize ns for Lifehel d that afedera ll aw pr o hibi tingc o r po r at i o ns fr o m makinginde pen den t ex pen di tu r es ex ce pt th r o ugh s eg r eg at ed funds was unc o nsti tuti onalas appli ed to a nonprofi t pol i ti calad vocacy or gani za tion, but the Cour t e xpressly a cknowle dged that the o rg ani zati on co uld be r equi re d to com plywith FEC A ’ s di sclosu re r egi m e. S ee 479 U
. S. at26 2 ( “These44 N o. 11

- 3693

re port i ng obl i gat i ons provi de p re ci sel y the i nfo rm ati on ne ce ss ary t o moni to rM CFL’ s i nde pen den t spe ndi ng acti vi ty and i ts re ceip t o fco ntributi ons. The st ate i nter esti n dis cl osur e there f ore c an be m et i n a m anner l ess r est ri cti ve than i m posi ng the fullpanopl y of r egul ati ons that acco m pany st atus as a pol i ti calco m m ittee u n d er th e A c t.” ). M a ssac hu setts C it iz ens fo r Life s h o ws th atthe r e i s no th i ngc o ns ti tutio na l l y magi ca labo utb eing l ab el ed as a po l i ti ca lc o m m i tt ee ; w ha t m at te r s ar e th e bur den s th ata tt en d the c l as si fi ca ti o n. Secon d , A rticl e 9 de fi n e s politi cal com m ittee m ore na r r o wl y tha n F ECA b y c o v e r i ngo nly g ro up s tha ta c c e pt c on tr ib u tio n s o r m ak e e x p en d itu re s “ on be h alf ofor in op p os itio n t o” a c an d id at e o r b allo t in itia tiv e. T h is d efin iti on i s m or e t ar get ed to ca m pai gn- re l ate d speech than FEC A ’ s defi ni ti on o fco ntributi on a nd expenditure, w hi ch ap p l i es to anythi ng o fvalue gi ven o r re cei ved

“ f o rthe p ur po s e o f

. . . i nfl ue nc i ng ” a n e l ec t i o n. 2 U. S
. C. § 43 1( 8) , ( 9)
. Aga i n, i n M cCo nnell, the C ou rt h el d that sim ilar lan gu ag e (w or d s s u c h as “’p ro m ot e,’ ‘op p os e,’

‘ att ack, ’ and ‘ supp or t’ ”) “pro vi de[d] expl i ci t s tandards” an d w as n otv a g u e . Se e 5 40 U .S. at 1 70 n .64 . Th e Illino is l i m it of “on behal fo fo r i n opposi ti on t o” confi nes th e r ea l m o fr egul at ed ac ti vi tyto ex p en di tu r es a nd c o ntr ibut i o ns wi th i n th e co r e ar ea o f g enui ne ly cam pai g nre l ate d tra nsacti ons. T hird , as the First C ircuit n o t e d i n u p hold ing M aine’s cam pai gn fi nance d i scl osur e l aw , appli cati on o fthe m aj or p u rp o se te stw ou ld “y ield p er ve rs e re su lts .” “[A ] sm all gr oup w i th the m aj orpurpose ofel ect in g a . . . st ateN o. 11

- 3693 45

See H u m a n L ife, 62 4 F .3d at 10 1 2 ; N o r t h C a ro lin a R ig h t to L ife, 25 52 5 F .3d at 332 ( M ic hael, J
. , diss enti ng) ( w arning that m aj orp u r p o s e s t a n d a r d “ e ffe c t i v e l y e n c o u r a g e s a d v o c a c y g r o up s t o c i r c u mve n t th e l a w by n otc re at i ng po l i t i c al ac t i on c om m i t t ee s an d i ns tead t o h i de the i r el ec t or al advoc ac y fro m 

### (continued...) re prese ntati ve that spe n ds [ $3, 000] f orads co uld be re quir ed to r egi ste r” as a pol i ti calco m m i tte e, w h i l e a
“ me g a - g r o u p th a t sp e n d s $ 1 , 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 t o d e fe a tth e s a me ca nd i d a t e , ” b u ts p e n d s f a rmo r e o n n o n - c a mpa i g nre l ate d acti vi ti es, “would nothave to r egi ste r because th e defeat oftha t ca ndi dat e co ul d no t be c o ns i der ed th e [ m ega - gr oup’s ] m aj orpurpose. ” Nat i onal O rg. f orM ar r i age, 649 F. 3d at 59, quoting Nat i onal O rg. f orM ar r i age v. M cKee, 723 F. S up p. 2d at26 4; se e a l so V e r mo n tRigh t t o L i

f eC o mm ittee, ___ F . S up p. 2d at
__, 20 12 W L 23704 45, at* 16 ( noting the “pecul i arr esul ts” the m aj orpurpose tes t wo u l d p r o d u c e i n a s mu c h a s “ a g r o u p th a ts p e n d s $ 1
. 5 MM of a to ta l of $6 M M o n p ro m ot in g c an d id at es p ro b ab ly w oul d not q u alify , but one that spends $150 0 o fa tot al bu d get of $2000 p robab ly w ou ld”). F o ur th, l i mi t i ngdi s c l o s ur e r e qu i r e men t s t o g r o up s w ith th e m ajor p u rp os e o fi n f l u en c in g e lec tio n s w ou ld al l ow even those ve rygr ou p s to ci rcum vent the l aw with ea se . Any o r g an i za ti o n de di cated pr i m ar i l y t o e l ec ting c an d id at es or p ro m ot in g b allo t m ea su re s c ou ld ea sily di l ut e th at m aj o rpur po se b y j us t i nc r ea singi ts no nel ec ti o ne er i nga ct i vi ti es o rb et te ry etb y merg i ng w ith a sy m p at h et ic o rg an iza tio n th a t e n ga ge d in ac ti vi ti es unr el at ed to c ampai g ni ng . I t i s ea syt o i m ag i ne 2546 N o. 11

- 3693



### (...continued) view by p ull ing i t i nto the fo ld o fthe irl arger organi zati onal st ructure ”)
. Contra id

. , 52 5 F
. 3d a t29 6 ( m ajor i t y opi ni on) ( rej ect ing dis se nt’ s w arning as “hyp erboli c” and st ati ng that “the di s s en tf ai l s t o s etf or th a ny m ea ni ng ful li m i tonthe consi gnm ent ofou r m o st basi c poli ti cal s peech t o layer u p o n la y er o f in te n se re g u la tio n ” ). The FE C ap plie s the “m aj or purp ose” tes t on a “cas e-by

- cas e” 26 basis, s ee The R ea l Trut h A boutA bor t i on , __F
. 3 d a t_ _, 2 0 1 2 WL 21 08 21 7, at *1, an d in p rac tice the test ap p ear s t o b e qu ite com plex, s ee S h a y s v . F ed er a l E lec tio n C o m m ’n , 511 F. Supp
. 2d 19, 3 1 (D .D .C . 20 0 7 ). A tth e fe d e r a l l e v e l , i n c r e a s i n g l y th e o u t l e t s f o u n d b y c a m- 27 pa i g n mo n e y a r e b l i n d a l l e y s ; th e h y dr a u l i c s o fc a mpa i gn fi nan c e have pr ope l l ed funds t o ps eudo nym ous s uperPACs an d § 50 1 (c)(4 ) g r o u p s. Se e D a n E g g en , B ehi n d the A ds, Facel ess (co n tin u ed ...) ho w i m pl ement i ngthe k i nd o fmaj o r - pur po se t es t th e Center advances coul d devol ve i nto an adm i ni str ativ e n i ghtm ar e. The Fi rs t A m endm ent does not re quir e a sta te to bui l d such an esca pe h atch i nto re aso nabl e di scl osure l aw s. The S u p re m e Cour t has fre quentl y warned

26 ofthe “har d l ess on o fci rcum venti on” i n cam pai gn fin an c e re gu lat ion
. M c Con n el l , 5 40 U
. S. at16 5; se e a l so C itiz ens U nited , 13 0 S
. Ct. at91 2; B uc k ley, 424 U .S. at 6 2. In p olit ica l ca m p aig n s, it se em s, “[m ]on ey , l ike w at er , w ill al w ays fi nd an o utl et. ” M cCo nnell, 54 0 U.S. at22 4; se e ge n er ally Sa m u el Iss a c h ar off & P am ela S. K ar lan , The Hyd rau lics o

f C a m pa ign Fin a nc e R efo rm , 77Tex. L. Rev. 17 05 ( 1999 )
. I l l inois’s di scl osur e pr ovi si ons att em pt to r educe

27N o. 11

- 3693 47

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 27 D on ors , W ASH . P OST, A pr. 26, 2012 , at A1. By on e ac c ount, i n the 2 0 1 0 e l e c t i on s l e s s tha n 1 0 % ofthe $ 7 5 m i l l i on ou t s i de g r ou ps spent on ele ct ioneer ing com m unicat ions cam e from ent it ie s thatdisc los ed thei r donors. See 2010 Ou t side Spendi ng, b y Gr o ups , Ce n t e r f o r Re s p o n s i v e P o l i t i c s , h t t p : //www. op en secrets.org /ou tsid esp en d ing /su m m .ph p ?d isp= O ( last v isi t ed Aug. 29 , 20 12). A nd al re ady thi s ye ar, gr oups thatdo n ot di s c l os e the i r donors ha ve s pen t$1 72 m i l l i on on t el evi s i on, rad io, and Inter ne t ad v ertis i n g . See Pa u l B lum en tha l, ‘ D ark M on ey’Hi t s $1 72 M i l l i o n i n 2 01 2 El e ct i o n, Hal f o f Indepe nde nt G r o up Spe ndi ng, H U F F I N G T ON P O ST(Ju ly 29 , 20 1 2 , 6:1 7 p m ), htt p://w w w .h u ffin g tonp ost
. com /2012/ 07/29/ dark

- m oney-2012- el ect ion_n_1708127. htm l. The reas on fo r th is bli nd s pot is that FEC re gul ations re qui re c or por at i ons an d l aboror gan i za t i ons m aking el ect ioneer ing com m unicat ions to report the id enti ti es ofdon or s g iving atl eas t $1, 000 o nly whe n the do nati on “w as m ade f or t he purpos e of

f urther i ng el ect ioneer ing com m unicat i ons. ” 1 1 C. F. R. § 10 4. 20 ( c ) ( 9) ( em phas i s adde d)

. W hi l e any perso n o r en t i t y s pen di ng a tl ea s t$1 0, 00 0 o n e l ec t i one er i ng com m unicat ion s m ust disc los e their s pe ndi ng, uni ons an d c or por at i ons ne ed n otdi s c l os e w ho has c ont ribut ed t o pa y f or the se ad s, “u nless the d on or is d u m b eno u g h sp ecifically to d ir ec t the o rg a n iz a tio n to u se th e m o n ey fo r a pa rt i c u l a r a d .” R ic h a r d L . H a se n, Show M e t he D onors: What ’s t he Poi nt of C am p aig n F ina n ce D isclosu re? L et’s R ev iew , S LATE (O ct . 14 , 20 1 0 ), htt p://w w w . sla te .co m /a rt ic le s/new s_and_p oli ti cs /polit ic s/2010 /10/sho w _m e_th e_d on or s. htm l. A d istrict co u rt rece ntly inv alid ated the F E C -created loo p ho le as an unreasonable co n str u ction ofthe FE CA s tatute. See V an Ho l l e n v . F EC , __F . Su p p . 2d
__, 20 1 2 W L 10 6 6 7 1 7(D .D .C . 20 1 2 ), (co n tin u ed ...)48 N o. 11

- 3693

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 27 st ay p end i n g ap peal den i ed, N o. 12- 5117, 12- 5118, 2012 W L 1758569 (D .C. Cir. M ay 14, 201 2) ( “O n th e m erits, inter v en or s f a i l to d em on strate a s t r o n g likelih oo d tha t the d istrict cou rt erred in int erpret ing .
. . the plai n te xtofs ect ion 201 ofthe Biparti san C am p aig n R eform A ct (’ B C R A ’ ), w hich requ ires tha t d isclosu res ‘ sh a ll c ont ai n . . . the na m es . . . of al l c ont ribut or s who c ont rib u t ed a n a ggr eg at e am ountof$1 , 00 0 o r m or e t o the p er so n” pu rchas ing “e le ct io n ee ri n g co m m u n ic a tio n s.’ ” ), q u o tin g 2 U .S.C . § 4 3 4 (f)(2)(F ). thi s ri sk ofcir cum venti on by d efi ni ng p ol i ti calco m m i tte e to i ncl ud e g ro up s that e i therco or dinat e e xpen d iture s w ith cam p aigns an d pa rties or th at run ad s tha t are unam bi guous appeal s t o vot e a part i cul arway. I n l i g hto fthe se c o ns i der at i o ns , the l i ne - draw i ngc o ncer ns t h at led the Courtto adopt the m aj orpurpose lim i tat i on forco ntributi on a nd expenditure l i m i ts in Buckl ey do not contr olo ur o verbreadth anal ysi s o f th e di sc l o su r e r equi r ement s o fArt i cl e 9. Ins te ad, a s th e S upr eme Co ur t ha s i ns truct ed i n ap p l y i nge xa ct i ngs cr uti ny, o ur inq uiry depends on whether ther e i s a subst an ti alr el at i o n b etwee n I l l i no i s’ s i nt er es t i n inf o r m i ng i ts el ecto ra te about w ho i s s peaki ng be f or e a n el ecti on an d Art i cl e 9’ s r egul at i o n o fc ampai g n- r el at ed spe ndi ng by gr oups w hose m aj orpurpose i s not el ecto ra lp olit ics. W e fi nd thatther e i s. In I l l i noi s, the vot i ng “publi c has an i nter est in kn ow in g w h o is s p ea kin g a b ou t a c a n d id at e s h or tly bef or e a n el ecti on, ” C itiz ens U nited , 1 3 0 S
. Ct
. a t9 1 5, w h et h er th at sp ea ke r is a p olit ica l p ar ty , a n o n p r ofitN o. 11

- 3693 49

See Out s i deSp e ndi ng, C en ter for R e sp on sive Po litics, 28 http ://w w w .op en secrets.org /ou tsid esp en d ing /ind ex.ph p ( last v isi te d A u g . 29 , 20 1 2 ). adv o ca cyg r o up, a f o r - pr o fi t co r po ra ti o n, a l ab o runi o n, o ra n indi vi dualc i ti ze n. The ne ed f o ra n e ffec tiv e an d c om p re h en siv e d isc los u re sy st em is es p ec ially va lu ab le after C itiz ens U nited , since i nd i v i du a l s a nd o ut si de b us i n e s s e n t i t i e s ma y e n g a g e i n u n l i mi t e d p o l i t i c a la dver ti si ng s o long as they do not coo rdi nate tact i cs with a pol itic al c am pai gn o r pol i ti calparty. S ee Cit ize ns U nited , 13 0 S
. Ct. at91 6 ( “A ca m p ai gn fi nance s yst em that pai rs co rporate ind ependent expend i ture s with effecti ve disc l osur e has not exi ste d b ef or e t oday.

. . . W i th th e a d ve n t o f th e In te rn et, p r o m p t d isc los u re of ex p en d itu r es c anpr o vi de sh ar eh o l der s an d c i ti ze ns w ith the i nf o r mat i o n ne e de d t o h o l d c o r po r a t i o ns a nd e l e c ted offici als accou nt able for th eir p ositi ons and sup p orters.”). Alr ea dy i n the 2 01 2 fede r al ele ct i o ns , o ut si de spe ndi ng has a pp ro ached $30 0 m i l l i on nat i onw i de. 28 A m i dst thi s ca cophony o fpol i ti calvo i ces

— s up er PACs, c o r po r at i o ns , uni o ns , a dvo ca cy gro ups , a nd indivi du al s, n ot to m enti on the par ti es and candidates them selves

— cam pai gn fi nance data can hel p busy vot er s s ift thro ugh the i nfo rm ati on a nd m ake i nfo rm ed pol i ti calj ud gm ents. Tra nsparency i n cam pai gn fi nance al low s the pub l i c to wei gh the “ cr edib[ i l i ty ] ” o fthe speake r and thus the “pers u as [iveness] ” o fthe m ess age , and that i s s o “ gener al l y whateverthe questi on i s, ” Ari sto tle , R hetor ic, i n 2 The Co m plete Wo rks of A r i stot le 2152 ,50 N o. 11

- 3693 21 55 (J o na th anBa r ne s ed. 1 984). , quo te d i n M aj ors v. A be ll, 36 1 F
. 3d 349, 35 2 ( 7th Ci r. 20 04) ( up hol ding sta te statu te requ iring politi cal ad s to i d en tify sp ons ors). Such tr anspare ncy hel ps the pu bl i c h ol d pol i ti cal speake rs acc ountabl e form aking f al se, m ani pu l ati ve, o r o th e r wi s e u n s e e ml y a d s th a t th e y mi g h t o th e r wi s e r un wi thi m puni ty
. As Jus ti ce Br an dei s o bs er ve d, “ Sun l i g ht i s sa i d t o b e th e be sto fdi sinfectant s; e l ec tr i c l i g htthe m os t e fficie n t p olic em an .” L ou is B ra n d eis , Oth e rPe op l e’s M o ney 6 2 ( 19 33 ) , quo te d i n B uc k ley, 42 4 U.S
. at67
. W e co ncl ud e that Ar ti cl e 9 ’ s r egul ati on a s pol i ti cal com m i tte es ofgr oups that l ack the m aj orpurpose of infl ue nc ing elections d oes not cond em n t he disclosu re l a w a s u nc o ns t i tut i o na l l y o v e rb r o a d.

C. “El e ct i one e r i ng Com m uni ca t i on” I n additi on t o i ts tw o m aj orsubst anti ve chal l enges to A rt icle 9, t h e C en te r as se rt s t h atse ve ra l oth er p ro visi o ns a r e f ac i al l y v ague a nd o ve rbr o ad. The fi rs t i s th e defini ti on o f“e l ecti onee ring co m m unica ti on, ” which appl i es to e xpe ndi tu r es a nd c o nt r ibut i o ns t o de te r m i ne w hetheran e nti ty i s a r egul ate d pol i ti calco m m i tte e that m ust d i scl ose i ts fi nances and donors. I l l i noi s defi nes “el ecti onee ring co m m unica ti on” as: any b r o adcast, c ab l e, o rs at el l i te c o m m uni ca ti o n, includ ing rad io, televisi on, or I nt erne t com m un icati o n, th at(1) r e f e r s t o a cle ar ly id en tifie d ca n d id at e . . ., cl ear l y i denti fi ed pol i ti calp ar ty, or a cl ear l y i denti fi ed que st i o n of pu bl i c po l i cytha t wi l la ppea ro n theN o. 11

- 3693 51 bal l ot, ( 2) i s m ade w i thi n 60 days bef ore a ge n er al ele c tio n . . . o r 30 d ay s b efo re a p rim ar y e lec tio n, (3) is ta rg et ed to t h e re lev an t e lec to ra te , an d (4) is s u sc ep tibl e t o n o reaso nabl e inter preta ti on o therthan as an ap p ea l to v ot e fo r or ag ain sta c lea rly id en tifie d ca n d id at e . . ., a p olit ica l p ar t y , o r a q u es tio n of p u b lic pol i cy. 10 IL C S 5 /9 -1.1 4 (s om e in te rn al n u m b e r i n g om itt ed ). Th is defini ti on i s tak en al m ostve rba ti m fro m the federa l defini ti on that was upheld ( to the e xtent i t t rigge re d di sc l o su r e r equi r ement s) i n C itiz e n s U nited

. Fe derall aw defines “ el ecti onee ring co m m unica ti on” as: any b ro adcast, cabl e, o r sat el l i te com m unica ti on whi ch

— ( I ) r e fe r s t o a c l e ar l y i de nt i fi e d c a nd i da t e f o rF e der alo ffi ce; ( I I ) i s m ade wi th i n

— (aa ) 60 d ay s b efo re a gen er al .

. . elec tio n ca n d idate; o r (b b ) 30 d ay s b efo re a p rim ar y . . . ele c tio n . . . ; an d ( I I I )
. . . i s t ar get ed to the re l evantel ecto ra te.

. . .

. . . [A ] co m m u n ica tio n w h i c h r efe rs to a c lea rly i denti fi ed candidate f or Feder alo ffi ce i s “ tar get ed to the r el evantel ecto rate ” i fthe com m unica ti on can be r ecei ved by 50, 000 orm or e per sons

—52 N o. 11

- 3693

. . . i n the dist ri ct [ orst ate ] the candidate se eks to re p re se n t . .
. . 2 U
. S. C
. A
. § 434(f) (3)( A )- (C). Th e C enterm ai ntai ns thatA rt i cl e 9 ’ s defi ni ti on o f

“ e l e c t i o ne e r i ngc o mm un i c a t i o n” i s v a g ue a nd o v erb r o a d. T h e Su p re m e C ou rth as alre ad y fou n d th e fe d er al d efin iti on t o be neith er o verbr oad norvague i n the conte xt o f d isc los u re req u ire m en ts , see , e . g. , C itiz ens U nited , 13 0 S
. C t
. a t 9 1 6 , s o i n a s s e s s i n g Ar t i c l e 9 we f o c u s o n t he w ays i n w hi ch t h e I l l i noi s s tatute i s br oadero r l ess preci se than the federa lo ne and then in q u ire wh ether each di ffer ence i s co nsti tuti onal l y per m i ssibl e. The r e ar e th r ee di ffer en ce s be twe enthe fed er ala nd A rt icle 9 d efin itio n s o f “e lec tio n ee rin g c om m u n i c a t ion s.” Fi rs t, the I l l i noi s s tatute c ove rs co m m unica ti ons re l ate d to bal l ot m eas ure c am pai gns. W e dete rm i ned abov e th atthi s el emento fArt i cl e 9 do es no t r en der the sta tute vague oro verbro ad, se e pa r t s I V. A. 2 & . 3 , a nd do not repe at ou r an a ly s is here. Second , A rticl e 9 covers “Int ernet s p eec h, ” whi chi s no t r egul at ed bythe fed er al statute. Thi rd, I l l i noi s doe s no t l i m i t the phras e “tar get ed to the re l evant el ecto ra te” byr efer ence to m i ni m um audie nce s i ze. W e no w address thes e l ast tw o differ ences.

1. Int e r ne tCom m uni ca t i ons The Center conte nd s that Arti cl e 9 ’ s r eg u lat i on o f cer tain I nter net sp eech as el ecti onee ring co m m unica

ti ons re nd er s i t unconsti tuti onally bro ad be c auseN o. 11

- 3693 53 I nt e r nets pe e c h, i n c o nt r a s tt o r a di o a nd t e l e v i s i o n b r o a dcas t s , i s no t c o nfi ne d t o pa r t i c ul a r a ud i e nc e mar k e ts or m om en ts in t im e. W ith ou t firm te m p or al or ge og ra p h ic lim ita tio n s, th e C en te r ar gu es , A rt icle 9 p ot en tia lly sw eeps in an untol d a m ou nt o fo nl i ne spee ch thathas nothi ng to do w i th I l l i noi s e l ecti ons. The Centernot es that “ m any Inter net c om m unica ti ons”

— f orexam ple , p ostings on th e C en ter’s w ebsite, em ail s t o t h e C en ter’s m em ber shi p dist ributi on l i sts , o r m ess age s thro ugh so ci alnetwork i ng si tes

— “ a r e e qu a l l y a c c e s s ib l e fro m al m ostanywhere i n th e worl d” and m ay eve n pers i st f or eve r i n cybe r- space thro ugh the use o fa so- cal l ed “W ayBack M achi ne” that s tor es w eb s i tes ev en afterthey ha ve b ee n r emov ed bythe i rc r ea to r s o rs po ns o r s. The conse quence, i t s ugge sts , i s that “ pol i ti cal l y- or i ented webs i te s ar o und the worl d m us t r ev i ew the i rc o nt en t be f o r e ea chI l l i no i s el ec ti o n t o i den ti fy a nd r emov e any p rior p os tin g refe rrin g t o s om eo n e w h o n ow is an Il lin ois candidate o r so m et hi ng tha t no w i s a n I l l i noi s ba l l ot questi on. ” K eepi ng i n m i nd that thi s i s a f acial ch all enge, we are notper su ad ed that thi s pro spect i n v a l i d a t e s th e e n t i r e l a w. F i r st, r equi r i ngd isc l o su r e o fg enui ne l y c ampai g nre l ate d I nter net c om m unicati ons und oubte dlyadvances I ll inois’s im p ortan t interest in inform ing its voters about w ho i s s peaki ng b efo re an e l ecti on. In re cent yea rs , a l a r g e a nd g r o wi ng pr o po r t i o n o f e l e c t i o ne e r i ng has been occu rri ng onli ne . In 20 08, for the fi rst tim e, “m ore than hal fthe vot i ng- age popula ti on use d the inter net to connectto the pol i ti calpro cess d u ring an e l ecti on54 N o. 11

- 3693

A a ro n Sm ith , The Inte rne t ’s R ol e i n C ampaign 2008 3 ( Pew 29 In te rn et & A m er . L ife P ro jec t, A p r. 2 0 0 9 ), avai lab le a t ht t p: // pewre s e a r c h

. o r g /p u b s / 1 1 9 2 /i n t er ne t
- pol i t i c s - c am pai gn2 0 0 8
. See O bama O uts pends R omn ey on O nl i ne A ds , C NN 30 ( J une 3 , 201 2 ) , h t tp: / / w w w . cnn. com / 2012/ 06/ 03 /po litics/ on line-cam p aig n-sp en d ing /ind ex.htm l.

S a sh a Iss en b er g , The C re epi nes s Fact or, S LATE (A p r. 2 6 , 20 1 2 ), 31 ht t p: //www . s l a t e . c om/ar ti cl es /new s_and_p oli ti cs / vict ory_la b/ 2012/ 04 /we b_ba s e d_po l i t i c a l

_ a ds

_why

_ the y_ s c a r e

_ the

_ obam a_ a n d

_ ro m n ey

_ ca m p a ig n s.h tm l. c y c l e . ” T ha tp o r t i o n i s a l mos tc e r t a i nly h i g he rt o da y . By

29 o n e e s t i ma t e , th e t wo maj o rp a r t i e s ’ p r e s i d e n t i a lc a mp aig n s w i l lspend $159 m i l l i on m or e o n w eb a ds in 2012 than i n 200 8

— a seve nfo l d i ncre ase . Thanks t o 30 adv an ce d I nt erne t m ar k et i ngs tr at eg i es , c ampai g ns a nd othe r pol i ti cal acto rs have now “acqui re d the t echni cal capaci ty to tar getW eb a d s w ith the preci si on o fm ai lo r a doo r- to- doorcanva ss. ” Cam pai gns, parties , a nd advo- 31 cacygr oups have in c re asingl y turned to the I nter net t o r ea ch the e l ec to r at e wi thc ampai g n mes sa g es , a nd I l l i no i s vo te r s ha ve j us t as much a stake in kno wi ngwho i s b e hind s uc h mes s a g e s a s wh e n the y a r e b r o a dc ast i n tr adit i onalm edi a. On the othe r hand , w e agr ee w i th the Cente r th at the potenti al re ach o f Ill i noi s’ s di scl osur e l aw co uld be probl em ati c i fdi sta nt speak er s were actual l y s ubj ect to re gu lat ion be c au se th ei r In te rn etp os tin gs ina d ve rt en tlyN o. 11

- 3693 55

oro bli quel y c oi nci ded with the subj ects o fI l l i noi s ba l l ot m eas ures . The st ate ’ s inter esti n i nfo rm i ng i ts vot er s o f the i denti ti es, fi nanci alo utl ays , and fund i ng so urces o f such m ar gi nalpol i ti calm ess enger s doe s no t r i se to th e i m po r ta nc e th e F i r stAm en dm en t d emands

. Ye t th e Center has i dent ified no case i n w hi ch the St ate Ele cti on Boar d has as ked out- of

- sta te speake rs to re gi ste r as pol i ti calco m m i ttees f ordi sse m i nati ng em ai l s, t we e t s , z o mb i e we b p a g e s , o ra n y o th e rIn t e r n e tc o mm unica ti ons that m er ely m enti oned I l l i noi s ca nd i dates ordi scusse d i ssues re l ate d to I l l i nois bal l ot m eas ures . N orco uld the Boar d l ega l l y do so, f oru n d erA rt i cl e 9 I nt erne t ads c o unta s el ec ti o ne er i ngc o m m unicati o ns o n l y wh e n th e y a r e b o th “ t a r g e t e d t o th e r e l e va nt [Illino is] e lec to ra te ” a n d “s u sc ep tib le t o n o re a s o n ab le i nter preta ti on o therthan as an appealto vo te f or o r aga i nst a cl ear l y i denti fi ed candidate

. . . , a pol i ti calparty, o ra ques ti o n o fpub l i c po l i cy . ” 10 I LCS 5/9- 1. 14
. The C en te r’s notion th at th e B oard m ight con side r an ou t-ofst at e adv o ca cyg r o up’ s web ad g en er all y e ndo r sing low t a x e s to be an u na m biguou s ap p eal to vote f or a “ba ll ot qu estion to balan ce th e Ill inois bu d get” sou nd s farfe t c he d. W i t h n o e vid en c e t h atth e B oa rd w ou ld ac tu ally const rue A rt i cl e 9 i n thi s s urpri si ng wa y, such r em ote , hy po th eti ca l appl i ca ti o ns do no t j us ti fy i nv al i dat i ng I l l i no i s’ s di sc l o su r e p ro vi si o ns f o rf ac i alo ve rbr ea dth

. Se e Washingt on St at eGr angev. Was h. Stat eRepub l i ca n P arty, 5 52 U
. S. 44 2, 45 0 ( 2008 ) ( “[ W ] e m ust be car eful not to g o b ey o nd the s tatu te ’ s f ac i alr equi r ement s an d s pec ul at e ab o ut‘ hy po th et i ca l ’ o r‘ i m agi na r y ’ c as es . ”) , quo ting56 N o. 11

- 3693 U nited Sta tes v. R a ines , 36 2 U.S
. 17, 22 ( 1960) ; se e a l so R ob er t B or k, The Tempti ng of Am e r i ca 169 ( 1990 ) ( “J ud ges and l aw yer s l i ve on the sli pp er y s l ope o fanal ogi es; they ar e not supp ose d to skii t t o the b ott om . ”)
. Fo r a f aci al chal l enge to p re vai l, a sta tute’ s o verbre adth m ust be

“ s ub s t ant i al, noto nl y in an ab solute s en se , but al so re l ati ve to the s tatu te ’s pla i nl y l egi ti m ate sweep. ” U nited S t a t e s v . Wi l l i a ms , 553 U .S. 28 5, 29 2 (2 00 8) . C f. Yazoo & M i s s i s s ippiVal l ey R. R. Co. v . Jacks on Vin egarCo. , 22 6 U .S. 21 7, 22 0 (1 91 2) (“ H ow th e s ta te co u rtm ay ap p ly [ a s tatute] to o thercas es, wh etheri ts gener alwords m ay be t re ate d as m or e o r l ess r est ra i ned, and how farpart s ofi t m ay be s ustaine d ifo ther s f ai lar e m att er s upon w hich w e nee d no t sp ecu late now

. ”). N either th e B oard no rI l lino i s co ur ts ha ve ha d “ o cc as i o n t o c o ns true the l aw i n the c o nt ex t o fa ctua l d ispute s ar i singfr o m the el ecto ra lco ntext, o r to acco rd the law a li m i ti ng co nstr ucti on to avo i d c onst i tuti onal q uesti ons. ” Washington State Gr ange, 55 2 U .S. at 4 50 . I t w ou ld be p re m at u re for th is co ur t to pr es um e th atthe Bo ar d woul d di sr egard th e obvi ous l i mi t s o fthe s t a tut o r y t e xta nd s e e kto apply Art i cl e 9 i n s ucha s wee pi ngf as hi o n. The Center c om p lains that i t i s t oo di ffi cul t t o know when an “e l ec ti o ne er i ng co m m uni ca ti o n” i s “made ” o n the I ntern et . Tim i ng i s i m port ant be cause ofthe du ti es that ap p ly d uring th e 30-d ay an d 60-d ay w ind ow s b e fore el ec ti o ns . S ee 1 0 I LCS 5/9- 1. 14 ( a)
. The di st r i ctc ou rt a nd the defendants as ser t that a co m m unic atio n i s “ m ade” on a w eb sit e b ot h w h en it is fi r s t p os te d an d w h ile it re m ain s a va ilab le on th e w eb sit e. T h at is a s en sib le r e a d i n g, j u s ta s a p h y s i c a lb i l lb o a r d i s c o n s i de r e d a c o m-N o. 11

- 3693 57

m unica ti on m ade bythe adverti seras l ong as i t i s di spla yed. The Center w onders i f i t w oul d s till be re sponsibl e forl ate r com m unica ti ons ( w i thi n the 30- daya nd 6 0- dayw ind ows) i fo th er s co py i ts a ds an d post them on othe r w ebsi tes
. I f that happ ens, th e C en ter woul d no t be “ m aking ” th o se l at erc o m m uni ca ti o ns a n d w o u l d n o tb e r e s p o n s ib l e f o rth e m. W e d o n otan tic ip at e th atA rt icle 9 w ill res tr ictor c h ill a s ubstanti alam ount o f pro tect ed speech b ecause i tt r e a t s c e r t a i n In t e r n e ts p e e c h a s e l e c t i o n e e r i n gc o mm unica ti ons. On i ts f ace, thi s e l em ent o fthe sta tute i s n e i the rv a g ue n o ro v e rb r o a d.

2. Target ed t o the R el evant Elec torate A rt i cl e 9 does not num er i cal l y define “t ar get [ i ng] the r el evantel ecto ra te” as does FECA , w h i ch r equi re s that the c om m unica ti on be capabl e o fbeing “r ecei ved by 50 ,00 0 o r m o re p er so n s.” 2 U .S.C . § 43 4(f) (3)( C ). I llin ois ha s g o o d r ea so ns f o ro m i tt i nga numbe r . I ts e l ec ti o ns i nvol ve m uch sm al l erel ecto ra tes, a n d it does not have ana g e nc y l i k e the F e de r a lCo mm un i c a t i o ns Co mm i s si on that w ou ld let i t m oni torhow l ar ge an audi ence a gi ven br oadcastr eaches

. Thi s di ffer en ce doe s no t defe at I l l i noi s’ s s ubstanti alintere st i n i nfo rm i ng i ts el ect o r a t e f o rthe p ur po s e s o fthi s fa ci a lc ha l l e ng e . In a dj ud i cating f aci alchal l enges , federa lco urts do not as su m e th atstat e o ffi ci al s wi l lc o ns true s ta te l aw i n the m os t e x p an siv e w ay im ag in ab le. O n th e c o n t ra ry , i t “ is re aso nabl e t o ass um e . . . that a s tat e co urt prese nted w i th a st a t e s t a tut e . . . wi l la t t e mptt o c o ns t r ue the st atute58 N o. 11

- 3693 consi ste ntl y with const i tuti onalr equi re m ents. ” City of Akro n v . Akron Ctr
. for R eproduc t i veHe al t h, Inc . , 462 U
. S. 416, 44 1 ( 1983 ) , o ve rru l ed i n parto n other gr ounds by P la nn ed P a renth o o d v . Ca sey, 50 5 U.S. 833, 88 1- 83 ( 1992 ) ( as sta ted i n plur al i ty opi ni on)
. W e agr ee w i th the stat e that a “ re aso nabl e, and const itu ti onalco nstr ucti on o f

‘ tar get ed to the re l evantel ecto ra te’ m ea ns a bro adcast com m unica ti on r ecei vabl e withi n the ge ogr aphica lar ea wher e po te nt i al vo te r s o n th at ca ndi dat e o ri ss ue l i ve . ” The ab s e n c e o f a n u me r i c b a s e l i n e d o e s no t c o n d e mn the p hr a s e “ t a rg ete d t o the r e l e v a nt ” a s f a c i a l l y i nv a l i d. A rt i cl e 9 ’ s defi ni ti on o f“e l ecti onee ring com m unica ti ons” i s n o tf a c i a l l y v a g ue o ro v e rb r o a d.

D
. C o ntribu tio n a nd E xp end iture Art i cl e 9 defi ne s “c o nt r ibut i o n” a s a “g i ft
. . . o ra ny th i ng o fv alue , kno wi ng l y r ec ei ve d i n c o nne ct i o n wi ththe nom i na ti o n fo re l ec ti o n, e l ec ti o n, o rr et en ti o n o fa ny candida t e o rp e r s o n t o o ri n pu b l i c o ffi c e o ri n c o nne cti on w i th any questi on of pu bl i c pol i cy. ” 10 IL C S 5 /9

- 1. 4( A ) ( 1)
. “Expend i ture ” m eans “g ift o fm oney, o r anythi ng o fvalue, [ m ade] i n connect i on w i th the nom i nati on forel ecti on, el ecti on, o r re te n tio n ofany perso n to ori n publi c o ffi ce or in co nnecti on with any questi on ofpubli c pol i cy. ” 1 0 I LC S 5/ 9- 1. 5( A ) ( 1). T h e “tr ansfer offund s b y a pol i ti calco m m i tte e t o anothe r pol i ti cal com m i tte e” autom ati cal ly quali fi es as a co ntributi on ( f or th e trans feree) an d an ex p en d iture (f o r the tran sferor). 1 0 I LCS5 / 9

- 1
. 5 ( A) ( 3 ) , 5 / 9

- 1
. 4 ( A) ( 3 )
. A n e xp e nd i tur e “ mad e i n cooper ati on, co nsul tat i on, o r concer t with anotherN o. 11

- 3693 59 pol i ti calco m m i tte e” i s co nsi dered a contr ibuti on t o that com m i tte e. 10 I LC S 5/ 9- 1. 4( A ) ( 5)
. The Centerchall enges th re e a sp ec ts o fth es e d efin itio n s a s u n c on st itu tio n ally vague.

1. In Conn e ct i on Wi t h, Su ppor t i ng, orO ppos i ng Fi rs t, the Ce n ter a rgues that the r equi re m ent that a c on tributi on o r expend i ture be “i n connect i on with” an el ecti on o r bal l ot i ni ti ati ve i s “ so vague and bro ad as to pr o vide no mean i ng fulg ui dan ce . ” By i ts el f, the “ i n c o nnecti on w ith ” l anguage would be ofl i ttl e hel p. But as th e d istri ctc o ur t co r r ec tly o bs er ve d, the s co pe o fthe “co ntributi on” and “expe n d iture ” defini ti ons i s further l i m i ted bythe n arro w erdefi ni ti on o f“pol i ti calco m m i tte e,” w h ich ap p lies o n l y t o c on tr ibu tio n s o r ex p en d iture s that a re m ade “o n beh alf o fo r i n opposi ti on t o a candidate ” ( f orpol i ti calact i on co m m i tte es) o r m ade “with th e pu rp ose of securing a place on the ba ll ot for [or] advocat i n g th e defe at orpassa ge of

. . . the questi on o f pu b l i c p o l i c y ” ( f o rb a l l o ti ni t i a t i v e c o mm i t t ees )
. 1 0 I LCS 5/9-1. 8(d ), (e). T he only regu latory con seq ue nc e of a tran sact ion qu ali fyi ng as a co n t r ibu tion or exp en d iture i s when ittr i gge rs r egi str ati on r equi re m ents for pol i ti cal c om m itt ee s, so th e m or e c irc u m sc rib ed lan gu ag e in that l att erpro vi si on i s what m att er s forthe vaguene ss an aly si s. Fo l l owing M cCo nnell, we concl ud ed abo ve that th e “in s uppo r t o f oro ppo si ti o n” l an g ua g e i n the defi ni ti o n o f“ ba l l o t i ni ti at i ve co m m i tt ee ” i s cl ea re no ugh. S ee p art IV. A
. 3. The sa m e g oes f orthe “on behal fo fo r i n opposi ti on to a candidate ” l anguage i n the defini ti on60 N o. 11

- 3693

o f“ po l i ti ca la ct i o n c o m m i tt ee . ” Allo fthes e defi ni ti o ns “g ive th e p er so n of ord in ar y in te llige n c e a re a so n ab le opportunity t o know w hat i s pro hibi ted. ” G ray ned, 40 8 U
. S. at10 8.

2. Tran sfer of Fu nd s from O ne P o lit i c a l C o m m ittee to A no ther N ex t, the Ce nt era tt acks A r ti cl e 9’ s tr ea tmento fa ny “tr ansfero ffund s bya p olit i calco m m i tte e t o anothe r pol i ti calco m m i tte e” as a co ntributi on o r expe n d iture
. T he C en ter claim s th is p rovisi on m ay ap p ly to tr a n sfers w i th gr oups that q ual i f y as pol i ti cal c om m i tte es und er the s tatute but have not yet reg i stered, so i t r equi re s pe o pl e “ t o j ud g e wh e the ra s o ur c e o rr e c i pi e nto ffund s m ayl at erb e j ud ged to ha ve made a $3 , 00 0 co nt r ibut i o n, ex p e n d itu re , or ot h er w ise be c am e a p olit ica l co m m itt ee .” Thu s, the Center fear s, i t “ coul d find i tse l fcla ssifi ed as an I l l i noi s pol i ti calco m m i tte e depending on how re gul ator s l ater assess som e o thergr oup’s speec h oro ther ac t i v i t i e s th a t[ th e C e n t e r ] c o u l d n o th a v e kn o wn abou t.” T h is result seem s highly un li kely becau se it overloo ks an im p or ta n t a sp ec t o f th e t ra n sfe r of fu n d s p ro visi o n s . A tra n sfe r c ou n ts as a c on tr ibu tio n an d ex p en d iture o nl y i fi t i s a l re ady be tw een tw o enti ti es that each qu ali fy as p oli tical com m ittees. See 10 I L C S 5 /9 -1.4(A )3 and -1

. 5( A ) ( 3)
. T hat m ake s s ense onl y i ftheyea ch al r ea dy qua l i fy a s po l i ti ca lc o m m i tt ee s i nde pen den t o fthe parti cul artr ansfer . The tr ansferto o r fro m som e o ther en ti tythat is a po l i ti ca lc o m m i tt ee woul d no t m ak e th e ot her enti ty a pol i ti calco m m i tte e. ( Otherwise , f orN o. 11

- 3693 61

exam ple , a contr acto r w h o produced an ad at tack i ng a candidate f ora pol i ti calco m m i tte e would i tse l fbe tr ansf or m ed i nto a p oliti calco m m i tte e. ) The m er e pos sibi l i ty that th e B oar d m i ght e nfo rce the sta tute i n such an u n fair w ay as th e C en te r sa ys it fear s is a goo d e x a m p le ofthe sor t o f“hypotheti calo r i m aginary ” s i tuati on with w h ich co u rt s d o n otco n c er n th em se lve s in fa c ial c h allen ge s. Was hi ngt on St at eGr ange, 5 52 U. S
. a t 4 50. I fthe B oa rd so u gh t t o e n f o r c e A rt icle 9 as th e C en te r sa ys it fear s, thatm i ght wel l p rovi de a s tr ong basi s foran a sappli ed chal l enge.

3. Co o rdin a ted E xp end itures F i na l l y, the st atut e tr ea ts as a c o nt r ibut i o n a ny “ el ec ti o neer i ng co m m unica ti on m ade in c oncer t o r co operati on w ith oratthe request, suggestio n, or k no w ledg e ofa candidate , a pol i ti cal com m i tte e, orany ofthei r age nts. ” 1 0 I LC S 5/ 9- 1.4( A ) ( 1. 5) ( em phases a dd ed). The Centerco ntends that the i tal icize d w or ds ar e v ague because theydo not speci fy the “ d eg ree o factualag re em ent r equi re d.” S i nce bef or e B u c k ley, ho wev er, F ECA ha s pr o vi ded th at“ ex pend i ture s m ade byany perso n i n coo pe rati on, co nsul tation, or con cert, w ith, or at th e requ est or su ggestio n of, a ca nd i date, hi s a uthor i zed pol i ti calco m m i tte es, o r thei r age nts, shal lbe consi dered to be a co ntribu tio n to such candi date. ” 2 U .S
. C. § 4 41a( a) ( 7) ( B)( i ) ; se e B uc k ley, 42 4 U .S. at 4 6. W ith th e e x c e p t ion of th e w or d , “kn ow ledge, ” Arti cl e 9 ’ s defi ni ti on o fco or dina tion i s no l ess c lear than the federa ldefi ni ti on, wh i ch has l ong passed m u st er in t h e Su p re m e C ou rt . See , e . g. , M cC onnell, 54 062 N o. 11

- 3693

Thi s c on st ru c t i on i s e s pec i al l y a ppro pri at e gi venthatthe 32 “k no w led g e” re q u irem en t is om itted fro m an oth erw ise 

### (continued...) U. S
. a t 21 9- 23
. W e th er ef ore rej ec t th e Cen te r ’ s ar g um en t th at th e ter m s, “in c on c er t or c oo p er at io n w i t h,” “r equest, ” a nd “s ugge sti on, ” a re unconsti tuti onal l y v ague. A s forthe w or d “ knowle dge, ” w e agr ee w i th the Cente r that sta nd i ng al one, i t would s w ee p i n a wide r ange o fe xpe ndi tu r es a s co o r di na ted ex pen di tu r es ( an d thus as i nd i re ct c ontr ibuti ons to cam pai gn co m m i tte es)
. Fo r i ns ta nc e, i fa c an di dat e l ea r ne d tha t ano ut si de g r o up had produced a f avo rabl e TV ad, would t h e ca nd i date have “kno w l ed ge” thatthe el ecti onee ring co m m unica

ti on was m ade? Thi s would notbe enough to saythat th e ad w as co o r di na te d wi ththe c ampai g n. Re co g ni zing th i s pr o bl em, the di st r i ctc o urt ad o pte d the l i m i ting c o ns t r uc t i o n tha t“ a ffi r mat i v e a c qu i e s c e nc e i s r e qu i r e d, no tme r e a ft e rthe f a c tkno wl e dg e tha tthe a dvocacy has o ccurr ed. ” A lth ough we ar e s om ew hat puzzl ed by th e phr as e “a ffi r m at i ve a cqui es ce nc e, ” we thi nkthe m ai n th ru st o fthi s l i m i ti ng co nstr ucti on i s s ound. U nd er the c anon o fnosci tura s ociis , th e f a c t th a t “ s e v e r a l i t e ms in a l ist share an attribut e cou ns els in favor of int erpreting the o theri tem s a s pos ses si ng tha t a ttr ibute a s w ell .” B eecha m v. U nited Sta tes , 5 11 U
. S. 368, 371 (1994 ). Thu s, the I l l i noi s l egi sl atur e’s pla cem ent o f“know l edge” i n a s er i es after“r eq u es t” and “sugg est i on” i nd i cate s that w e s houl d i nter pret the l ast, m or e g ener alw or d, to be s i m i l arto i ts m or e s peci fi c nei ghbors. Both “ re quest” 32N o. 11

- 3693 63



### (...continued) p ara llel pr ov ision of A rticle 9 d efining “ind ep en d en t exp en d itu re.” See 10 IL C S 5/9-1.15 (d e fi nin g “ind ep en d en t exp en d it ur e” as ane xpendi t ur e f or e l ec t i one er i ng c om m uni c at i on “th a t i s no t m ad e in co nn ectio n, con sulta tion , or con cert w ith or atthe r eques tors ugge s t i on ofthe public o ffi c i al or c andi dat e, . . . , pol i t i c al c om m i t t ee , . . . c am p aig n, . . . or[ any ] a g en t [th er eo f]”). F or exam p le, the FE C ’ s reg u lation s on coo rd ina ted exp e n d i- 33 tures s tat e that the defini ti on “is not s atisfie d ifthe i nf orm at i on m at er i al t o the c re at i on, pro duct i on, or d istr ibut i o n o f the com m u nica tion w as ob tain ed fro m a p u b licly av a i l a b le sou rce,” b u t that “ [a]greem en t or form al co llaborati on b et w een the pers on pay ing f or the com m unicat i o n a n d th e c a n di da t e . . . i s n o tr e q u i r e d. ” 1 1 C
. F
. R. § 10 9 .21 (d )(2), (e). and “ sugge st” nece ssa ri l y i m plyactualpri orco m m unica

t i o n b e t we e n th e p u r c h a s e r o f th e e l e c t i o n e e r i ngc o mm uni ca ti o n a nd the c andi dat e, c o m m i tt ee , o ra n a g en t th er eo f

. The us e o fthe t er m “ kno wl edg e” i s cl ea r l y i ntended to en sure thatco or dinat i on ca nnot be achi eve d b y a p r o v e rb i a l“ wi nkand no d, ” s uc h a s wh e r e the s up p o s e d l y i n d e p e n d e n tg r o u p g i v e s a c a n d i d a t e ’ s c a mpa i g n a d v a n c e , s e c r e tn o t i c e o fi t s p l a n n e d a d v e r t i si ng cam pai gn to at tack the o pp onent i n a par ti cul arway, but witho ut actual l y dra w i ng an expli ci t r esponse fro m th e ca ndi dat e’ s ca m pai g n. 33 I n th e con tex t o f “req ue st” an d “su ggest,” the w ord “kno wl edge” m ayf ai r l y b e co ns true d a s r equi r i ng advance an d n on -p u b lic c om m u n ica tio n w ith th e c an d i-64 N o. 11

- 3693

A rticle 9 d efines “in d ep en d en t ex pen di tur e” as“any p ay m en t, 34 gi ft, dona t i on, ore xpe ndi t ur e offunds ( i ) by a na tu ral per s on or poli ti cal com m it tee f or the purp o se ofm aking el ect i one er i ng co m m uni c at i ons orofe xpr es s l y a dvoca t i ng for or aga i ns tthe no m i nat i on f or e le c t i on, e l ec t i on, r et en t i on, or defea tofa c l ea rl y i dent i fi abl e publ i c offi c i al or c andi dat e or for or ag ain st a n y q u estion of pu b lic po licy to b e sub m itted to the vot er s an d ( i i ) thati s no tm ade i n c onn ec t i on, c onsu l t at i on, 

### (continued...) d a t e o re n t i ty o n w h o s e b e h a l fth e e l e c t i o n e e r i n gc o mm unica ti on i s s up posedl y m ade. W here an o ther w i se ambi g uo us pr ovisioni s r ea di l y s us ce ptibl e to a l i m i ting c o n s t r u c t i o n th atcur e s th e v a g u e n e s s c o n c e r n s , we sh ou ld adopt i t. S ee B uc k ley, 4 24 U. S
. a t 77

- 78 ( “Wh ere the c onst i tuti onalr equi re m ent o fdefi ni tenes s is a t st ak e, we ha ve the fur th erob li gat i o n t o c o ns true the s tatute, i fthatcan be done consi ste nt with the l egi sl ature ’s p u rpos e, to avo i d the s hoal s o fvagueness. ”)
. A ccor dingly, we i nter pret “kno w l edge” i n l i ght o fi ts adj ac en t te r m s an d c onc l ude tha t th e co o r di na ti o n l an guage o fA rt i cl e 9 i s cl eareno ugh to pro vi de a r eason ably in tell igent p erson “fai r w arn ing” of w ha t sort ofco nd uct i s co ver ed. S ee G ray ned, 40 8 U.S
. at10 8.

E
. Ind epen den t E xp end itures A n “i nd ependent expend i ture ” i s a n expend i ture f or an e lect i onee ring co m m unica ti on o r any for m o fexpre ss advocacythati s n ot coo rdi nated with a ca nd i date ora cam pai gn. U nl i ke coo rdi na ted expenditures , an 34N o. 11

- 3693 65



### (...continued) or con cert w ith o r at the requ est or su g g estion of th e p u b lic offi c i al or c andi dat e, the publ i c offi c i al ’ s or c andi date ’ s d es i gna ted p olitical co m m ittee or cam p aig n, or th e ag en t or a g en ts ofth e publ i c offi c i al, c andi dat e, orpol i t i c al c om m i t t ee or cam paign.” 10 ILCS 5/9- 1. 15. A fter e xc ee di ng the thr es hol d, an y na t ur al pe rs on m aki ng 35 such i nd epend ent expenditures “m ust fil e a writ ten disc los ure w ith th e S ta te B o a rd o f E le ct io n s w ith i n 2 b u sin es s d a y s . . . id en tify [ing] the n atu ral per son , the p u b lic official or can d id ate supp orte d or op posed, the date, am ount, and nature o f eac h independ ent expenditure, and the natural pers on’ s occupati on and em ploy er .” 1 0 ILCS 5/9- 8. 6( a)
. “An y enti ty othe r than a n a t ur a l pe r s ontha tm a ke s e x pe nd i t ur e s o fa ny k i nd i n an ag g reg ate a m o u nt exc eed ing $3,00 0 d u ring an y 12-m on th p erio d sup p or ting or o p p osin g a p u b lic official or can d id ate m u st org an i z e a s a p olitical co m m ittee” a nd “rep or t all such i nd epe n dent expenditures as requi red und er” Arti cl e 9. 1 0 IL C S 5/9 -8 .6(b ), (c). “inde pen den t ex pen di tu r e is no t co ns i der ed a co nt r ibution to a po l i ti ca lc o m m i tt ee . ” 10 I LCS 5/9- 8. 6( a)
. W he n, how eve r, i n a 1 2- m onth per i od a perso n oro rg ani zati on m ak es m or e t h an $3 ,00 0 w or th of in d ep en d en t e x p e n d itu re s “ su p p or tin g or op p os in g a p u b lic off icia l o r c an d id ate ,” 1 0 I L C S 5/9-8. 6, th is tri ggers A rticl e 9’s disclosu re re quir em ents. The Centerco ntend s that the phras e 35 “s u p p or tin g or op p os in g a p u b l ic o fficia l or c an d id at e” is i mpe r mi s s ibl y v a g ue b e c a us e the “ s up po r t i ngo ro pposi ng” l anguage i s uncl ear, and beca use the pro vi sio n ap p ea rs to ap p ly to a d v o c ac y for or a ga in stp u b lic offi ci al s who ar e no t ca nd i dates.66 N o. 11

- 3693 F i r st, the “ su ppo r tingo r oppo sing ” l an g ua g e ha s no e ffe c to n th e s c o p e o rs u b s t a n c e o fth e s e i n d epe nde nt expend i ture repor ti ng r equi re m ents. N ot j ust a ny uncoo r di na t e d c a mpa i g n- r e l a t e d e xp e nd i tur e i s a n “ i nd e pe nd

ent e xpend i ture ”

— onl y thos e m ade ei ther ( 1) for “e lect i o ne e r i ngc o mm un i c a t i o ns ” o r( 2 ) f o r“ e xp r e s s l y a dvoca ting for or against t h e . . . election .

. . or d efeat of a c l e a r l y i de nt i fi ab l e p ub l i c o ffi c i a lo rc a nd i da t e . ” 1 0 I LCS 5/ 9- 1. 15. Recal lthata bro adcast counts as an el ectio n ee rin g c om m u n ica t i o n on ly if it “r efe rs to a c lea rly id en tifie d c an d id at e” an d is “s u sc ep tib le t o n o re as on ab le i nter preta tio n other than as an a pp ealto vo te f oro r ag ain st ” th atca n d id at e. 10 IL C S 5 /9 -1.1 4(a ). Th is s t a nd a r d

— as wellas the sta nd ar d fo r express advoca cy

— i s m uchm o r e demandi ngtha n the r equi r ementtha t ex p en d itu re s m er ely be “s u p p or tin g or op p os in g a p u b lic o f fi c i a lo rc a n d i d a t e . ” W h e n th e m u l t i p l e s t a tu t o r y t e r ms and defini ti ons ar e a ss em b l ed, then, the “supporting o r op p osing” l anguage i s r edun dant and does no t r ender th e d efi ni ti o n o f“ i nde pen den t ex pen di tu r e” unc o ns ti tu
ti onal l y v ague oro verbro ad. S ee Human L if e, 6 24 F. 3d at 1021 ( “otherwis e i m preci se ter m s m ay avo i d vaguenes s probl em s when used i n com bi nati on w i th te rm s that provi de suffi ci ent cl ar i ty” ) , quoting Gam m oh v
. Ci ty of La Ha bra , 395 F.3d 111 4, 1120 ( 9th Cir. 2005). As f o rthe phr as e “pu bl i c o ffi ci al, ” we a g r ee wi ththe C en te r th at a str ict ly lite ra l in te rp re ta tio n of th e p ro visi on would i ncl ud e ind epen d ent e xpend i ture s m ade f or “expres sl y ad vo c ating f oro r aga i nst the .

. . el ecti on or d efe atof a c lea rly id en t i f i ab le p u b lic off icia l” w h o is not curr entl y a cand i date, bu t w ho m ay run fo r re - el ecti onN o. 11

- 3693 67

I tc oul d no t a ppl y t o e xpe ndi t ur es m ade f or “e l ec t i one er i ng 36 com m unicatio ns, ” ofcours e, because thes e re quire referenc e t o a “ c l e a r l y i de nt i f i e d candi dat e” and a n un am bi guous “app eal to vote” f o r or againstthatcandidate. 10 I LC S 5/9- 1 .14 (a ) (em p h a sis ad d ed ). i n so m e future yea r. I t is c l ear, however, fro m bo th 36 the t ext o fthi s s ecti on a nd A rt i cl e 9 as a w hol e, w h i ch re p ea te d ly re fer s t o in c u m b en t c an d id at es as “p u b lic offic ials ,” th att h e leg isla tu re in te n d ed t h e p h ra se “p u b lic o ffi ci al ” i n s ec ti o n 9

- 8. 6 to meana pub l i c o ffi ci alwho i s a l so a ca nd i date. T h at is the l i m i ti ng co nstr ucti on th e d istri ct co urtad op ted , and i t is a sou nd one. So na rrow ed , the p rovisi on of A r t icl e 9 i m p osing d isclosure re quir em ents f or“ind ependent expend i ture s” i s no t v a g ue o ro v e r l y b r o a d.

Concl us i on “What ev erdi ffer en ce s m ayexi stabo uti nt er pr et at i o ns ofthe Fi rs t Am end m ent, ther e i s pra cti cal l y uni ver sal agr eem en t that a m aj orpurpose ofthatA m endm ent was to prot ect the fre e di scussio n ofgo vernm entalaff ai rs . Thi s o fc o ur se i nc l ude s di sc us si o ns o fc an di dat es , . . . a nd al lsuch m att er s r el ating to pol i ti calpro cess es. ” M i l l s v. A l a b a ma , 3 8 4 U. S
. 21 4, 2 1 8

- 1 9 ( 1 9 6 6 )
. T he F i r s tAmen dm ent he l ps to ensur e that o u r “co nsti tuti onal l y pr ote cted ‘d isc u ss ion of go ve rn m en ta l affa irs ’ is an i n for m ed on e.” G lo be New spa per C o . v. Sup erior C o urt, 45 7 U.S
. 59 6, 60 5 ( 1982 ) , q u ot i ng M il ls , 38 4 U.S
. at21 8. Cam pai gn fi nance d isc los u re req u ire m en ts ca nad va n c e t h e d em oc ra tic68 N o. 11

- 3693 vi rtues in i nfo rm ed and tr anspare nt publ i c di sco urse w i thout i m pai ring o therFi rs t Am endm ent v al ues. A l though “ d isclo sure i s a l ess r est ri cti ve al ternati ve to m or e co m prehensi ve re gul ati ons o fspeec h, ” Cit ize ns U nited , 1 30 S
. Ct
. a t 91 5, we ar e no t unmi ndfulo fthe cos ts i t m ay gener ate i n f or ego ne spee ch fro m tho se w ho w ish to r em ai n anonym ous, i n the l oss o fpri vacy, and fr om so ci alfri cti on. S ee , e . g. , M cIntyrev. O hio E le cti ons Co m m ’n , 5 1 4 U. S
. 3 3 4 ( 1 9 9 5 ) ( s t r i k i n gd o wn st at e la w req u irin g id en tific at ion of a u t h o rs h ip on all cam pai gn- re l ate d pu bl i cati ons as appli ed t o dist ributi on ofunsi gned l eafl ets byi nd i vi du alpam phlet ee r) ; se e g e n e r a l l y S y mp o s i u m, Pri vacy, D e m oc racy, a nd Ele ct i ons , 19 W m . & M ar y B ill R i ghts J
. 85 7 ( 2011 )
. W e a l so tak e th e Cen te ra t i ts wor d tha t i ts donors ar e so a damant ab o utr emai ni nga no ny m o us tha t su bj ec tingi t to the I l lin ois r epor ti ng r equi re m ents w i l ldeteri t fro m engag i ng in i ts prefer re d for m o fpubli c advoc acy. That i s r egr ett abl e, but i t i s the Center ’s an d i ts donors ’ choi ce to m ak e. A s Ju st ice Sc alia h as w rit te n, pa rt icip at ion in the p olit i calpro cess ta kes “ci vi c co urag e, witho ut wh i ch dem ocr acy i s doo m ed. ” D o e v. R eed, 13 0 S. Ct. at28 37 (Sc alia , J. , con c u rrin g in th e jud gm en t). W h ile th er e is al so a “ re specte d tra dit i on o fano nym i ty in the advocacy of pol i ti calcause s” i n thi s co untry, se e M cIn tyre, 5 14 U
. S. at34 3, that tr adit i on d oe s not m ean v ote rs m ust re m ain in t h e d ar k ab ou t “w h o is sp ea kin g ab ou t a ca n d idate s hor tl y b ef or e a n el ecti on. ” Cit ize ns U ni ted, 13 0 S
. Ct. at 915. Cam pai gn fi nance di scl osur e l aw s m ust s tr i ke a bal ance betw een pr ote cti ng ind i vi du alspeak er s fro m i nv a s i o ns of pr i v a c y a nd h a r a s s men to n the o ne h a nd ,N o. 11

- 3693 69 and enabl i ng tr anspare ncy a nd acc ountabi l i ty i n pol i ti cal c am p aig n s o n th e o th er . I llin ois ’s la w s d o s o s u fficie n tly to survi ve thi s f aci alchal l enge. The j ud gm ent o fthe dist ri ct c ourti s A FFI RMED .

P OSNER, Cir cu i tJudg e, c o nc ur r i ngi n pa r t an d di ss en ting i n pa r t. Ia g r ee wi thmuch in the m aj ority o pi ni o n, b u ts e v e r a lp r o v i s i o n s o fth e I l l i n o i s s t a tu t e se e m t o me to burden the pla i nti ff’ s fre edom o fsp ee c h und uly ; we s h o u l d i n v a l i d a t e th e m. T h e C en te r for Ind ivid u al F re ed om is a n on p ro fit or ga n izati on e ngage d i n publi c advoc acy. I t m ake s a dvert i sem en ts and dis sem i nates them i n tel evi si on, print, o nl i ne, and o the rme di a ; i tma i nt a ins a we b s i t e ; a nd i tp r o du ces a rad io sh o w. I t co nduc ts s o m e o fi ts a ct i vi ti es dur i ng el ecti on ca m pai gn s, o ften c om m ending to the e l ecto ra te can d idat es w hom i t thin ks li kely i f e le c t e d to sup p ort th e po l i ci es i t adv o ca te s. Buti t i s no t affi l i at ed wi tha nd does not coo rdi nate i ts ac ti vi ti es w i th anycandi date, cam pai gn, or pol i ti calp ar ty and i s thus an “ind ependent” ad voca cy grou p w ithin th e m ean ing of C i tiz ens U nited v. Fe de ral Ele ct i on Com m i s s i on , 130 S. C t. 876, 910 (2010), a nd B uc k ley v . Va leo , 42 4 U.S
. 1, 45

- 47 and n . 53 ( 1976 ) (p er curi am )
. I t there f or e i s no t s ubj ect to al lthe re g-70 N o. 11

- 3693 ula ti ons that sta tes ar e a l l ow ed to i m pose on pol i ti cal com m i tte es that ar e affi l i ate d w i th ca nd i dates, cam pai gns, orpart i es. A st ate i s per m i tte d, how eve r, to co m pel pu b l i c di s c l o s ur e o fe l e c t i o n- r e l ate d a c t i v i t i e s o fi nd e pen d en t group s , o n th e the ory that suc h d isclosure hel ps the el ecto ra te evaluate candidate s forpubli c o ffi ce, id. at 66, 81 , tho ugh a s tat e m ay not l i m i t donat i ons to an in d ep en d en t ad vo c ac y orga n iza tio n or th e e x p en d iture s that s uch an o rg ani zati on ca n m ake , o r ban i ts s pe e c h. S e e Spee ch Now. org v . Fe de ral Ele ct i on Com m i s s i on , 599 F.3d 686, 694-96 (D
. C
. Cir. 2010) (en ban c). I l l i no i s r egul at es whati t ca l l s “po l i ti ca lc o m m i tt e e s, ” an d th e te r m i nc l ude s no t o nl y pa r ti sa n c o m m i tt ee s but al so any ind ependent or gani zati on o r in d i vi du althat “a c c e p t s c o n t r ib u t i o n s o rma k e s e x p e n d i tu r e s d u r i ng any 1 2- m o nth pe r i o d i n a n a g g r eg at e amoun t ex ceedi ng $3 000 on be hal fo fo r i n opposi ti on t o a ca nd i date or ca n d id at es for p u b lic off ice ” o r “in su p p or t o f or in opposi ti on to a ny quest i on o fpubli c pol i cy to be su bmi tt ed to the e l ec to r s, ” o rtha t “makes el ec ti o ne er i ng c o mm un i c a t i o ns , ” e xc e e di ngthe mo ne t a r y thr e s ho l d, that ar e “ re l ate d to” a ca nd i d at e or to a questi on o f p u b lic p olic y. 10 IL C S 5 /9 -1.8 (d ), (e). A “c on tr ibu tio n ” is am ong othe r thi ngs “ an ythi ng o fvalue thatco nsti tutes an el ecti onee ring co m m unica tion m ade i n conce rto r c oo p er at ion w ith o r atth e re q u es t, su gg es tio n, or kn ow led ge of a c an d id at e, a p olit ica l co m m itt ee , or an y of th eir age nts, ” or “a tr ansfer of fund s re cei ved by a p oliti cal com m i tte e fro m ano therpol i ti calco m m i tte e. ” 10 I LC S 5/ 9- 1. 4( A ) ( 1.5 ) , ( 3)
. A n “expenditure” i s a nythi ng o f val ue gi ven “ i n connect i on with the nom i nati on forN o. 11

- 3693 71 ele c tio n, elec tio n, or ret en t i o n o f an y p er so n to or in pu bl i c o ffi ce, ” 1 0 I LC S 5/ 9- 1. 5( A ) ( 1) , o r “thatco nsti tutes an el ecti onee ring co m m unica ti on m ade in concer t o r c oo p er at ion w ith or a t th e re qu e s t, su gg es tio n, or kn ow ledge o fa c an d id ate , a pol i ti calco m m i tte e, o r any o f th eir ag ents. ” 1 0 I LC S 5/ 9- 1. 5( A ) ( 2)
. A nd fi nal l y a n “el ecti oneering co m m unica ti on” i s a ny br oadcast, cab l e, sat el l i te, o r I nter net c om m unica ti on that r efer s t o a “cl ear l y i denti f i ed c a nd i da t e , ” “ c l e ar l y i denti f i ed p olit ica l p ar ty ,” or “c lea rly id en tifie d qu es t i o n o f p u b lic pol i cy that w i l lappear on the bal l ot, ” p ro vided that the c om m unica ti on i s m ade withi n 60 days be f or e a g en er al elect i o n o r3 0 day s be f o r e a pr i m ary e l ec ti o n, i s “ tar get ed to the re l evant e lec tor ate , ” a nd “i s s usceptibl e t o no r eas onabl e i nter preta ti on o therthan as an ap p ea l to v ot e fo r or ag ain sta c lea rly i d e n tifie d ca n d id ate... or a qu estion of pu bli c p oli cy.” 10 I L C S 5/9-1. 14(a). A p olit ica l co m m itt ee m u streg ist er w ith th e Illino is B oa rd of Ele cti ons, 10 I LC S 5/ 9- 3( a) , and fi l e quar ter ly re port s that o pen i ts fi nances t o pu bl i c sc rutiny. Fo r each re portm ust r eve al“a l lfi nanci alact i vi ty, ” a s the st ate w ebsi te pu ts i t ( I l l i noi s S tat e Boar d ofEl ecti ons, “Po l i ti cal Com m i tte e Re p or t F i l i ng F or m s, ” htt p: //el ecti ons. i l

. gov/ Cam pai gnDis cl osur e/ Pol i ti cal Com m itt ee .as p x (vis ited A u g. 23 , 20 12) ) , i n the previ ous quar ter

— mus tr e veal the t ota lcon tributi ons i t r ecei ved, al ong w i th al lo ther r ec ei pts , a nd the t o ta l ex p endi tu r es i t m ade, i nc l udi ng i nvest m ents and l oans; al ong w i th the nam es , ad dress es, and o th eri denti fyi ng detai l s o fdonor s, and ofr eci pie nts of the com m ittee’s ex p en d itures. 10 I L C S 5/9-10(b), - 11(a).72 N o. 11

- 3693 H avi ng to di scl ose the nam es of dono rs i s the m ost o ne r o us r equi r emen t tha t th e st atut e i m po se s o n a pol i ti calco m m i tt ee beca use m any donor s don’ t want to be publ i cl y i denti fi ed as contr ibuti ng to an o rg ani zati on e ngage d i n publi c advoc acy re gar ding i ssues o f p u b lic po licy , w h ich u su ally are co n tr ov er sia l. In d ee d C IF alleges w ithou t con trad iction tha t its don ors requ ire as su r an ce s th atthe i ri d ent i ti es wi l lno t be di sc l o se d, a nd th at th is an on ym ity is a co n d itio n of th eir su p p or t. So C IF v e r y mu c h d o e s n o t wa n t t o b e c l a s s i fi e d a s a p o l i t i c a lc o mm i tt ee a nd o ne wayt o a vo i d tha t f at e i s t o a vo i d a ny acti vi ty that m i gh t, ev en i fther e i s no cer tainty that it w ou ld, r eq uire C I F to regi ster. The v ague ne ss o fa numbe ro fk eypr o vi si o ns o fthe I l l i nois law i s there f or e worr i som e. A vague st atute ca n det er l awful ac ti vi ty
. Caut i o us per so ns wi ll w ant to a v o i d e v e n a s mal l pr o b ab i l i ty o f b e i ng f o un d to have vi ol ate d i t, and the safestway to d o that i s t o avo i d l aw ful acti vi ty that i s j ust ac ro ss the l i ne fro m th e unl awful

— to cr ea te a b ufferz o ne a r o und the sta tutory c or e, j us t as cauti ous m en deci de not to have se x w i th yo ung-l oo ki ng wom en wh o probabl y a re not be l o w the a g e o fc o ns en t butmay be

. W he n the l awful acti vi ty l i kely t o be det er re d b y a vague s tatute i s no t extr am ar i talse x but the exer ci se offre e s peech

— a r i g ht a tthe a pe x o fmo de r n c o ns ti tut i o na ls o l i c i tud e

— a fin d in g of v ag u en es s is a p t to d oo m th e s ta tu te
. FCC v. Fox Tel evis ion St a tions, Inc. , 132 S. Ct
. 2307, 2317-18 (2012). The vague pro vi si ons i n the I l l in ois el ecti on s tatute m ay cause CIF to r efrain from co nsti tuti onal l y pr ote ctedN o. 11

- 3693 73 advocacythatthe sta te has no pow erto r egu late be ca us e th e adv o ca cyc o ul d no t i nfl ue nc e ane l ec ti o n. N orcan a fed er al c ourtm ake a bi nd i ng inter preta ti on of a st at e s ta tu te , en d e a vo rin g t o t rim its va gu e p ro visio n s; if it at te m p ts a n ar ro w in g in te rp r e t at ion th atd ev iat es w id ely from th e s ta tu te ’ s a p p a re n t m ea n in g it is takin g a bi g r i sk that the s tat e wil lr ej ect the inter preta
tio n . Sten berg v. C a rha rt, 53 0 U.S
. 91 4, 94 4- 45 ( 2000 )
. That ri sk w i l li n turn oper ate as a deter re nt to the advocacy g r o up’ s r ely i ngo n the fede r alc o ur t’ s i nt er pr et ati on. W ith an election l oom ing, ad voca c y group s can ’t w ai t forthe Suprem e Cour t o fI l l i noi s t o i nter pret al lthe vague provi si ons ofthe el ecti on s tatut e in case s i ns t i tut e d i n the s t a t e c o ur t s y s t e m tha t a r e l i k e l y to tak e y ear s t o re ach a n d b e deci ded bythe sta te’ s hi ghest cour t. These a re the vague provi si ons: 1. A tr ansfero ffund s fro m a p oli ti calco m m i tte e t o a pol itica lco m m i tte e qual i fi es as a co ntributi on r egard less ofam ou nt
. A politi cal com m ittee m us t rep ort al l r ec ei pts , no t j us t co nt r ibut i o ns a s defi ne d b y the sta tute, se e 1 0 I LC S 5/ 9- 11( a) ( 10) , and i n additi on m ust re port “the nam e and a dd re ss of each pol i ti cal c om m i ttee fro m wh ich the re port i ng co m m i tte e r ecei ved, o r to w h ich th atco m m itt ee m ad e, an y t ra n sfe r of fu n d s.” 10 I LCS 5/9- 11 ( a) ( 6)
. S o i fb y v i r tue o fo th erc o nt r ibut i o ns oro theract i vi ti es CIF were to be c l ass i fi ed as a pol i ti cal com m i tte e, i t would have to i d en ti fy a ny o therpol i ti cal com m i tte es fro m wh i ch i t rece i ved m oney . I t m i ght no t know a d on or w as a p olit ica l co m m i t t e e , an d th atw ou ld74 N o. 11

- 3693 b e n o d efe n se , b ec au se t h e st at u te d oe s n otreq u ire kn ow led ge orev en suspi ci on that the tr ansfer ori s a pol i ti cal com m i tte e

— ther e i s no st ate o fm i nd req uir em ent a t al l

. The t r an sfer ee woul d ha ve to i nv es ti g at e th e fin an c ial ac tiv ity of eac h d on or (in c lu d in g an ind ivid u al, wh o as a “ n a tu r a lp e r s o n ” c a n c o n s t i tu t e a p o l i t i c a lc o mm i tte e) to deter m i ne wh etherthe donor w as a p ol i ti cal c om m itt ee . I t m igh t b e a co m m itt ee th ath ad im p ro p er ly faile d to reg ist er ; th atw ou ld be n o d efe n s e . Y etit w ou ld be afra i d t o l i st a donor as a pol i ti cal c om m i tte e u n l e s s c o n fi d e n tth a ti twa s o n e , a s o th e r wi s e i tmi g ht geti nto tr oubl e w ith the donor

. Dam ned i fi t doe s, dam ned i fi t doe sn’ t. A n unreg i ste re d en tity does n’thave to di scl ose i ts contr ibuti ons and expend itu re s, so i t would r ar el y b e cl earwh etheran e nti ty quali fi ed as a pol i ticalco m m i tte e. Ve r y littl e o fthe i nf o r m at i o n r equi r ed to de te r m i ne the s tatus ofa donor i s publ i c. Thi s i s a n additi onal re aso n w hy a d vocacy gr oups l i ke CIF m i ght for go donati o ns fr o m unf ami l i ardo no r s. Butb y r edu cingthe g r o up’ s r es o ur ce s, thi s ca ut i o us res p ons e t o the vaguene ss ofthe sta tute w oul d curtai li ts advocacy

. A n al t e r n at ive rea d in g of t h e “ tr an sfe r of fu n d s” p ro visi on i s that r ecei pt of m oneyfro m a pol i ti calco m m i tte e m a k es the re ci pie nt a pol i ti calco m m ittee. I l l i noi s m ay h av e b ee n co n c er n ed th atint er es t g ro u p s w ou ld tr ansferm oneyi n chai ns endi ng with a co m m i tte e that di dn’ t ha ve t o r eg i st er ; t o t ar g etthose c ha i ns a nd thus c lo se a p ot en tia l loop h ole in t h e s ta tu te , th e Illino is co ur ts might read th e st atut e to r ea cha l lmem be r s o ftheN o. 11

- 3693 75 chai n. Thi s inter preta tio n would have an ev en gr eat er tendency t o disc oura ge an advoca cy gr oup fro m accepting donati ons fro m unfa m i l i arind i vi du al s o r or gani zati ons. 2. Any “e l ec ti o ne er i ngc o m m uni cati o n” made wi ththe “k n ow led ge ” o f a c an d id at e is an ex p en d itu r e t h atif i t exc ee ds th e l o w st atut o r y thr es ho l d m ak es the adverti sera pol i ti calco m m i tte e. The word “kno w l edge” can’ t be i nter prete d to re quir e that the adver ti serhave com m unica ted with the c andidate , bec ause knowle dge ca n b e ac qui r ed in ot he rway s. M y c o l l ea g ue s th i nkthe Illino is c ou rt s w ou ld int er p re t th e w or d “k n ow led ge ,” w hi ch appears atthe end ofthe se q u en c e “ re quest, sugges ti on , a nd kno w l edge, ” t o m ean the sa m e thi ng as th e tw o prec ed ing w ord s beca u s e i t is th e “m ore gener alword .” Bu t i t’ s no m or e g ener althan the o ther wor ds; th e th r ee wor ds ar e si m pl y di ffer en t fr o m o ne anothe r. I t’ s no t l ike a statute thatr efer s t o “auto m obi l es, tr ucks, tr acto rs , m otor cycl es, and other m oto r- pow er ed v e h icle s” ; in th atse q u en c e “ m ot or -p ow er ed ve h icle s” is i nd eed m o r e g en er altha n the i te m i ze d e xa m pl es , b ut presum abl y no t intended to be s o encom p as sing a ca tc ha l la s to i nc l ude a i r pl an es , s i nc e al lthe pr ec eding t e r ms i n the s e qu e nce de no t e di ffe r e ntf o r ms o fl a nd

b as ed tra n sp or ta tio n . C f. M cB o yle v . U nite d Sta tes , 28 3 U
. S. 25 (1931) ( H olm es, J. ). S o a n o r g a n i z a t i o n th a twa n t e d t o a v o i d c r o ss i ng the $ 3 0 0 0 thr e s ho l d wo ul d i fc a ut i o us r e fr a i n fr o m br o a dc a s t i n ga d s e n t i r e l y, r a th e rth a n j u s ta v o i d c o o r d i na ti ng thei r ads w i th the candi date.76 N o. 11

- 3693 The di st r i ctj udg e was troub l ed bythi s pr o vi si o n a nd to save i t inter prete d “knowle dge” t o m ean “ affirm at i ve ac q u ies c en c e .” B u t w h atd oe s t h atm ea n ? T h atth e c an d id at e w as d elig h te d to lea rn of an ad th a t p ra ise d h im ora pol i cy he was pushing? 3. I f an “el ecti onee ring com m unica ti on” i s deem ed to be “m ad e” w h en ev er a u s e r ac c es se s a w eb sit e, cf. Fl ava Wo rks, Inc . v. Gu nter, N o . 1 1 -31 90 , 201 2 W L 31 24 82 6, at*7 ( 7th Ci r. A ug. 2, 20 12) , then eve n an appealto vo te that i s pos ted m or e than 3 0 or 60 days bef or e the el ecti on ( depend i ng o n w hetheri t i s a pri m ar y o r a g ener alel ect i o n) wi l lc o ns t i tut e a n e xp e nd i tur e tha t, i fi te xc e e ds th e mo d e s tth r e s h o l d i n th e s t a tu t e , wi l lma k e th e c o mm unica tora pol i ti calco m m i tt ee a nd thus r equi re i t t o re gi ste r. A te l evi sio n ad ver ti serco ntro l s the dates o n whi chhi s ad i s sh o wn; b uta n Int erne t ad o rweb po st i ng r e mains o nl i ne a nd a c c e s s ib l e u nt i lr e mov e d. T he a dver ti serm ay del ete th e ad fr om hi s websi te, but i t m ay al re ady have bee n copi ed an d posted o n a hundred other webs i te s. S ho ul d the a dve r ti se rb e thoug ht t o b e co nti nuing to m ak e an el ecti onee ring co m m unica ti on by fai ling to ensu re that his ad p o s t e d d uring the safe ha rborpe r i o ds i s no l o ng era cc es sibl e to v o te r s? And ho w ca n h e do tha t? On th es e cr i ti ca lque st i o ns , the sta tute i s s i l ent. The o nl y s ure w ay to avo i d havi ng to re gis te r as a p olit ica l co m m itt ee is th er efo re to av oid endors i ng an I l l i noi s ca nd i date o nl i ne atany ti m e. T h e Illino is c ou rt s m igh t in te rp re t “ m a d e” to refe r on ly to th e o r i g i na l po st i ng o f th e ad. But th i s woul d o pen up a l o o pho l e; the a dvocacy gr o up mi g htha ve po st ed th eN o. 11

- 3693 77 ad sh or tly be for e t h e 3 0- o r 60 -d ay cu to ff a n d d e let ed it j ust be f or e the cuto ff s, co nfi dent thatthe cam p aign fav or ed by th e a d w ou ld co p y it a n d p os t itso th atit woul d b e see n r i g htup to e l ec ti o n da y . Be ca us e th e sta te cour ts m i ght wel ldeci de to cl ose thi s l oo p h ole by i nter p reti ng “m ade” t o i ncl ud e the i ni ti alpost i ng, advoca cyg r o ups woul d b e r unninga l eg alr i skb y po st i ng o nl i ne a ds ev enl o ngb efo r e th e date o fthe e l ec ti o n, a nd m i ght there f or e be deter re d fr om doi ng so . 4. Any pay m en t “in c o nne ct i o n wi th ” an elect i o n ( i nc lu d in g p ay m en t f o r ad s) c ou n ts as an ex p en d itu re . “In conne c t i o n wi th” c o ul d a pp l yt o c o mm un i c a t i o ns not m ade f orthe pu rpos e o fi nfluenci ng the el ection , s uch as spe ec h o n i ss ue s o fpo l i cytha t hap p en to b e sa l i en t i n the c ampai g n. An a dvo ca cygrou p m i g hti nt en d i ts m ess age to r each awider audience

. I t m i ght e ven b e a dv o c a t i nga p o s i t i o n e mbr a c e d b y n e i the rc a nd i da te. Disc l osur e o fsuch a group ’ s fi nances w oul d not be cl o s e l y r e l a t e d t o th e s t a t e ’ s i n t e r e s ti n i n f o r mi n gthe el ec to r at e ab o uta c an di dat e’ s s uppo r te r s. Ye t th e sta tute m ay re quir e i t. S pee ch ca n ha ve al l so r ts o f co nne ct i o ns to an el ec ti o n: it m a y m en tio n an ele c tio n, d es c rib e a ca n d id at e a n d h is po si ti o ns , o rs i m p ly refert o a po l i cytha t i s ati ss ue i n the camp ai g n. A dr y di sc us si o n o fe co no m i c i ndi ca tors m i g htb e s e e n a s b e i ng“ i n c o nn e c t i o n wi th” a n e l e c t i on i n w hi ch the m ai n i ssue w as eco nom i c pol i cy. B ecause disc l osur e r equi re m ents ar e no t con stituti onal l y l i m i ted to express advoca cy f ora candidate , se e C itiz ens U ni t ed v. Fe de ral E lectio n Com m i s s i on , sup ra , 13 0 S
. Ct. at91 5,78 N o. 11

- 3693 ther e i s no te l l i ng how f arI l l i noi s’ s defin iti on r eaches into th e r ea l m o f i ss ue adv o ca cy . Once ag ain, to be sure of n oth av in g t o re gis te r, a n org an iza tio n like C IF m i ght deci de to avo i d speaking ab ou t a ny pol i cy i ssues dur i nge l ec ti o n c am p aigns. I t m i g htg o s i l en t dur i ng cam pai gns. 5. E x p en ditures m ade “in connect i on with” an e l ecti o n coun t t o war ds th e $3 00 0 th r es ho l d f o rr eg i st er i ng onl y i f the y a r e mad e “ o n b e ha l f o f o r i n o pp o s i t i o n to” a ca ndi dat e, a nd tha t m i g hts ee m t o t ake ca r e o fthe concerns Ij ust e xpresse d w i th r esp ect to “i n connect i on w ith .” B u t sp ee c h s u p p or tin g or o p p os in g a p olic y a ss oc iat ed w ith a c an d id at e c ou ld be se en as be in g on be h alf o fo ri n o ppo si ti o n t o that can di dat e, e spe ci al l y i fthe po l i cyi s th e ca ndi dat e’ s si g na tu r e i ss ue . T he te r m thus do es no t cl ea r l y e xc l ude mos t i ss ue a dvo ca cy, a nd g r o ups s ucha s CI F mightthe r efo r e av o i d sp ea k i ng on iss u es th atco u ld be as so c iat ed w ith a p ar tic u lar ca n d idat e. I m ag i ne a s i ng le- iss ue c an di dat e: as o ngbi r d e nthusi ast, he wants the o w ners o fcat s t o be forbi dd en to a l l o w th e i rp e t s o u to fd o o r s , s i n c e c a t s , i n d i f f er en t to a vi anb ea uty a nd mel o dy, k il l bi r ds f o rf o o d a nd spor t. I f the hum ane soc i ety buys ads that decl ar e it s passi onate support f orthe songbi rds, isn ’t th er e a se nse i n w hi ch i t i s a dvocating f orthe el ecti on o fthe song bi rds’ candi date a nd ther ef or e m aking an expend i ture o n h is b eh alf a n d in o p p os itio n to h is op p on en t? O r sh ou ld “on behal fo f ” be i n ter prete d to m ean m oti vate d by a des i r e to he l p the c an di dat e r athe rtha n the c au se the candidate supports ? W ho know s?N o. 11

- 3693 79 M cConn e l l v. Fe de ral Ele ct io n Com m i s s i on , 54 0 U.S
. 93 , 170 n. 6 4 ( 20 03 ) , o ve r r ul ed o n o th erg r o unds i n Cit ize ns U ni t e d v
. Fe de ral Ele ct i on Com m is s i on , sup ra , hel d that a fe de r a ll a w tha tc o nt a i ne d the wo r ds “ pr om ote s , ” “ s up p ort s, ” “a tt ac k s, ” an d “ o ppo se s” was no t va g ue ; a nd the phr as e “o n beh alfo fo ri n o ppo si ti o n t o ” i s si m i l ar . But the federa ll aw i nvol ved speec h re fer ringto part i cul ar ca ndi dat es a nd made bys ta te po l i ti ca l p arti es the acti ons ofwh i ch ar e p re su m ed to be coo rdi nated with candidate s. The I l l i noi s l aw appli es to all w ho want to spe a k o n pu b l i c i s s ue s b ut furni s he s no c l ue to how re l ate d to a ca nd i date’ s pos i ti on thei r spe ec h m u st be t o tr i gge r the di scl osur e r equi re m ents. The stat u te i s no t l i m i te d to groups tha t co o r di na te the i ra ct i vi tywi tha candidate o r ex p ressl y a dvocate f orhi m . A nd i t i s no t, as in the cou nt erp art fede ral statu te, 2 U .S .C
. § 431(8)( A )( i) , l i m i ted to sp eech m ade “forthe pu rpos e o fi nfluenci ng” an ele c tio n, sin c e t h er e is n o s ta te of m in d lim i t a t i o n in the I l l i noi s s tatute, so no basi s forusi ng purposi venes s to l i m i t r el ate dn ess . The m ore a rbi tr ar y the m eani ng tha t m ust be as si gned to a st at e st atut e to a vo i d c o ns ti tu ti o na lpr o bl ems, the l e s s c o nfi de ntwe c a n b e tha t the s t a t e c o ur t s wo ul d a do pt i t. I fi nd ependent advoca c y g ro up s s hare thes e doubts , cau tion m ay m ake them steer w ell clear of th e s t a t u t ory condi ti ons f orhaving to r egi ste r as a politicalco m m i tte e, wi tha l lthe b ur den s en ta i l ed byr eg i st r at i o n. W hen the fi ve vague sta tu tory provi si ons that Ihave been disc ussi ng ar e co nsi dered in c om bi nati on, i t be

com es apparent that thei r cum ula ti ve effect on a dvocacy by CIF and si m i l aro rg ani zati ons coul d be co n sid er abl e.80 N o. 11

- 3693 To av oi d the bur den ofr eg i str ati on, such g ro up s m ay tak e m eas ures to curb thei r advocacy eve n i f thos e m easure s m ay not i n f act ( that i s, i n l aw ) b e re q u i re d i n or der to avo i d havi ng to r egi ste r. Th at is the vi ce o fvagueness

— that i t ca uses an org ani zati on o r an i nd i vi du al to g i ve a law a wi de be r th, i n thi s i ns ta nc e byf o r g o i ng const i tuti onal l y prote cted s peech. W e s houl d i nsi st, inth e n am e o f th e F irs t A m e n d m en t, th atth e Illino is l egi sl atur e s peak with gr eat ercl ar i ty.

9- 10- 12