F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T H U M A N L I F E O F W A S H I N G T O N I N C ., P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. CH A I R BI LL BRU M SI CK LE; V I CE C HA I R KE N S C HE L L B E R G; S E C R E T AR Y D AV E S E AB R OO K; J A N E N O L A N D ; J I M C L E M E N T S , in the i rO f f i c i a l C apa c i t i e s a s O f

f i c e r s a nd M e m b e r s o f

th e W a s h in g to n S ta te P u b lic Di s c l o s u r e C o m m i s s i o n ; R OB M C K E N N A , i n H i s O ff i ci al C apac i ty a s W a s h in g to n A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 09- 35128 D . C. N o . 2 : 0 8 - c v - 0 0 5 9 0 - J CC OP I NI ON

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe W e s t e rn D i s tr i c tof W a s hi ngt on J ohn C . C oughe nour , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d M a y7, 2010 S e a tt l e , W a s hi ngt on F i l e d O c t obe r12, 2010 

# FI LED OC T 12 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALST he H on orabl e J am es W ar e, U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctJudg e f or the N orthern * D i s tr i c tof

C a l i f orni a , s i tt i ng byde s i gna t i on. T he na m e d of

f i c i a l s a r e B i l l B rum s i c kl e , K e n S c he l l be r g, D a ve S e abr ook, 1 Jane N ol and, and Ji m C l em ent s, i n thei r off i ci al capaci t i es as offi ce rs and m em bers o f th e W a s h in g to n S ta te P u b lic D is c lo s u r e C o m m is s io n , a n dR o b M c K e n n a , in h is of f i c i a l c apa c i tya s W a s hi ngt on A tt orne yG e ne r a l ( c ol l e c t i ve l y , w i th the s t a t e of W as hi ng t on , “ W as hi ng t on S t at e” ). 2 B ef ore: W A R D L A W and G O U L D , C i rc ui tJudg es , and W A R E , D i stri ctJudg e. *

O pi ni on by Judg e W A R D L A W , C i rc ui tJudg e:

“ [ T ] he pe op l e i n ourde m oc r a c yar e e ntrus t e d w i th the r e s p o n s ib ilityf

o r ju d g in g a n d e v a lu a tin g th e r e la tiv e m e r its of c onf l i c t i ng a r gum e nt s . T h ey m a yc ons i de r , i n m a ki ng th e irju d g m e n t, th e s o u r c e a n d c r e d ib ility o f th e a d v o c a te .”

– Firs t N a tio n a l B a n k

v . B e llo tti , 435 U . S . 765, 791–92 ( 1978) ( f ootnot e s om i tt e d) H um an L i fe of W as hi ng t on (“ H um an L i fe ”) , a non profi t , pro-l i fe advo ca cy c o rp o r a tio n , ap p e a ls th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s d e n ia l o f s u m m aryju d g m e n t in its s u it ag ai n stv ari o u s W ash i n g t o n st at e o ffi ci al s. H u m an L i fe ch al l en g es, o n F i rst 1 A m endm entgrou nd s, W as hi ng t on st at e’ s P ub l i c D i sc l osure L aw (“ D i sc l osure L aw ”) , enac t ed as partof i t s c am pai gn fi nance re gu l at i on . T he S up re m e C ou rt re ce nt l y c on cl ud ed thatthe go vernm ent“ m ayre gu l at e c orpo ra t e pol i t i ca l spee ch throu gh di sc l ai m erand d i sc l osure r equi re m ent s, bu ti tm ayno tsupp re ss that spee ch al t og ether. ” Ci t i z e n s Un i te d

v . FE C , 130 S . C t . 876, 886 ( 2010) . B a s e d on3

thi s pri nci pl e, and for m any of the sam e r ea sons art i cul at ed by the w el l -r ea soned op i ni on of the di stri ctcourt , w e t oo concl ud e thatW as hi ng t on S t at e’ s di sc l osure r e q u ir e m e n ts d o n o t v io la te th e F ir s t A m e n d m e n t, e ith e rf a c ia llyo ra s ap p lie dto H um a n L i f

e a nd i t s pr opos e d c a m pa i gn t o e duc a t e vot e r s aboutthe da nge r s of ph ys i ci an-a ss i st ed sui ci de i n con nect i on w i th a bal l otm ea sure thatw ou l d l egal i ze the pract i ce . I . B AC KG RO UN D

A . H u m an L i f

e of W as h i n gt on an d I n i t i at i ve 1000 In 20 08 , W as hi ng t on vo t er s w er e a sked t o con si der abal l oti ni t i at i ve, I ni t i a t i ve 1000, w hi c h w oul d “ pe rm i tt e rm i na l l yi l l , c om pe t e nt , a dul tW a s hi ngt on r e s i de nt s m e di c a l l ypr e di c t e d t o di e w i thi n s i x m onths t o r e que s ta nd s e l f - a dm i ni s t e rl e tha l m e di c a t i on pr e s c r i be d byaphy s i c i a n. ” W a s h. I ni t i a t i ve M ea sure N o. 10 00 (200 8). T he m ea sure qu i ckl y s paw ned an “ em ot i on al l y c harged b a ttle ” b e tw e e n its a d v o c a te s a n dits o p p o n e n ts . A s s o c ia te dP r e s s , W as hi ngton S ta te B a ttles o v e rV

o te to A llo w L e th a l Me d s fo rD y in gP a tie n ts , O c t . 11, 2008; se e a l so J o h n I w a s a k i, “P lay i ng G od” orD i gni f i e d D e ath? Fai th B as e d G r oups T a kin gCr u c ia l R o le in I

n itia tiv e B a ttle , S e a tt l e P os t - I nt e l l i ge nc e r , O c t . 13, 2008 ( “ O n the i rr e s pe c t i ve W e b s i t e s , the c a m pa i gns f ora nd a ga i ns tI ni t i a t i ve 1000 i ncl ud e poi nt -by- po i ntatt em pt s t o d ebun k the other s i de i n the debat e over4

phy s i c i a n- a s s i s t e d s ui c i de , the c ont e nt i ous e nd- of - l i f e i s s ue f a c i ng W a s hi ngt on vo t er s i n the generalel ec t i on . ”) . H u m a n L if

e o p p o s e d I n itia tiv e 1 0 0 0 , c o n s is te n t w ith its m is s io n to “r e e s tab lis h th r o u g h o u t o u rc u ltu r e , th e r e c o g n itio n th a t a ll b e in g s o f h u m a n o r ig in a r e pe r s ons e ndow e d w i th i ntr i ns i c di gni tya nd the i na l i e nabl e r i ghtt o l i f e f r om c o n c e p tio n to n a tu r a l d e a th .” I n p u r s u it o f th is g o a l, H u m a n L if

e e n g a g e s in “ed u ca ti o n al, l eg islati v e, an d ju d icial eff o rts” to “see kre fo rm in o u r c u ltu re ’s unde r s t a ndi ng. ” O ve rthe y e a r s , H um a n L i f e ha s e xpe nde d c ons i de r abl e t i m e a nd r e s o u r c e s o p p o s in g e f

f o rts to le g a liz e p h y s ic ia n - a s s is te ds u ic id e in W a s h in g to n . F or exam pl e, i n 1 99 1, H um an L i fe and i t s a ff i l i at ed po l i t i ca l ac t i on com m i tt ee , H L P A C , a c t i ve l ypa rt i c i pa t e d i n the s uc c e s s f ul c a m pa i gn t o de f

e a tI ni t i a t i ve 119, w hi ch w ou l d h ave a m ended W as hi ng t on ’ s c on st i tut i on t o l egal i ze phy s i c i a n- a s s i s t e d s ui c i de . I n 2008, on the da ytha tI ni t i a t i ve 1000 w a s f i l e d, H um a n L i f

e i s s ue d a“ s pe c i a l r e port ” i n a n a tt e m ptt o pr e ve ntthe i ni t i a t i ve f r om re ce i vi ng a s uffi ci entnu m ber of s i gn atures t o q ual i fyfor the bal l ot . U rgi ng re ader s t o “ E N C O U R A G E O T H E R S N O T T O S IG N T H E IN IT IA T IV E , ” the re po rt s t a t e d: “ O ne w oul d hope tha ti tw oul d de e pl ytr oubl e the c ons c i e nc e of a ny one in c lin e d to s ig n th is in itia tiv e p e titio n , k n o w in g th e ya r e s ig n in g s o m e e ls e ’s d e a th w arrant . ”5

W i th p hysi ci an-a ss i st ed sui ci de back on the bal l oti n 2 00 8, H um an L i fe u n d e rt o o kp l a n s t o s o l i c i tf u n d s f o ra n dl au n c h ap u b l i c e d u c a t i o n c a m p a i g n . As H um a n L i f

e e xpl a i ne d i n i t s ve r i f

i e d c om pl a i nt , f

i l e d A pr i l 16, 2008, T h e y e a r2 0 0 8 is a n e s p e c ia llyv ita l tim e f o rH L W to a d d r e s s th e p h y s ic ia n - a s s is te d s u ic id e is s u e b e c au s e p e o p le a ga i n w i l l be unus ua l l y a tt e nt i ve a s i ts w i r l s t o the f or e f r ont of publ i c a tt e nt i on. . . . T he phy s i c i a n- a s s i s t e d s ui c i de i s s ue is in p e o p le ’s f

o c u s b e c au s e f

o rm e rG o v e rn o rB o o th G a r dne rf

i l e d the pr opos e d I - 1000 w i th the S e c r e t a ryof S t a t e on J a nua ry9, 2008, w i th qua l i f y i ng s i gna tur e s due by J u ly3 , 2 0 0 8 . H u m a n L if

e ’s p la n n e d e d u c a tio n a l c a m p a ig n c o n s is te do f th r e e p r o p o s e dp u b lic com m un i ca t i on s, as w el l as “ subst ant i al l y s i m i l arac t i vi t i es ” thathad n otye tbeen id e n tif ie d . F i rs t , H um an L i fe w ou l d d i stri bu t e asol i ci t at i on l ett ervi a e m ai l , re gu l ar m a i l , a nd i t s w e bs i t e . T he pr opos e d l e tt e r , w hi c h di d note xpr e s s l ym e nt i on I ni t i a t i ve 1000, ope ne d: “ T he a s s i s t e d s ui c i de i s s ue j us tw on’ tgo a w a y . B ut nei ther w i l l w e. W e are here t o argue the prol i fe si de on your behal f. H ow ever , as thi s gr i s l yi s s ue he a t s up a ga i n i n 2008, H um a n L i f e of W a s hi ngt on ne e ds y our he l p t o pa yf

ors om e r a di o a ds t o e duc a t e the publ i c . ” I tw e nton t o r e c ountthe defe atof the 19 91 bal l oti ni t i at i ve, t o d raw para l l el s betw ee n m i d-19 th century sl av ery ab o l i t i o n i st s an d m o d ern -d ay p ro -l i fe ad v o cat es, an dt o d i scu ss a stu d y b y a6

p a llia tiv e - c a r e s p e c ia lis t in S c o tla n d , w h ic h it a s s e rte d“s h o w s th a t p r o b le m s w ith O r e gon’ s a s s i s t e d s ui c i de s c he m e a r e r e a l . ” I n c l os i ng, the l e tt e rr e que s t e d a dona t i on t o f

und H um a n L i f

e ’ s publ i c e duc a t i on c a m pa i gn, s t a t i ng tha t“ [ t ] he pu bl i c nee ds t o rec ei ve thi s s ortof i nform at i on as as si st ed sui ci de advo ca t es on ce a g a in o f f e rb ia s e d , in a c c u r a te , a n d r o s yd e p ic tio n s o f th is g r is lyp r a c tic e .” S ec on d, i n add i t i on t o sendi ng l ett er s, H um an L i fe i nt ended t o t ar get in d iv id u a l v o te r s b yte le p h o n e . A f te rin tr o d u c in g th e m s e lv e s a s c a lle r s o n b e h a lf of H um a n L i f

e , c a l l e r s w oul d r e a d f

r om apr opos e d s c r i pt , a l l udi ng t o I ni t i a t i ve 1000. T he s c r i pt s r e a d:

R ig h t n o w w e a r e try in g to r e a c h e v e ryp r o - lif e h o u s e h o ld in W a s h in g to n w ith a n u r g e n t u p d a te . A s y o u ’v e p r o b ab ly hear d, form erG ov erno r B oo th G ar dn eri s try i ng t o g etan i ni t i at i ve on the b al l otthi s f al l thatw ou l d l egal i ze p h y s ic ia n - a s s is te d s u ic id e in th e S ta te o f W a s h in g to n . W e f e a rth a t m a n y W a s h in g to n ia n s d o n o t k n o w th e g r is lyf a c ts abou tph ys i ci an-a ss i st ed-s ui ci de and i t s devasta t i ng ef fe ct on a c ul ture of l i fe . C a l l e r s the n w oul d s ol i c i tf i na nc i a l c ontr i but i ons t o H um a n L i f e ’ s publ i c e duc a t i on a n d a d v o c a c ya c tiv itie s . F i nal l y, H um an L i fe i nt ended t o b roadcas tra di o adv ert i se m ent s. It devel op ed four prop osed sc ri pt s f or thi rty- se cond ra di o spo t s. In on e, a m al e voi ce w o u lds a y , “S o m e p e o p le th in kth a t p e r s o n s w ith d is ab ilitie s d o n ’t h a v e liv e s w o rth7

l i vi ng , ” t o w hi ch a f

em al e voi ce w ou l d res po nd , “ L i ke N az i do cs !” In another pr opos e d r a di o s pot , the s pe a ke rw oul d not e tha t“ [ a ] s s i s t e d s ui c i de i s ba c k i n the n e w s ” a n d w o u ldg o o n to s u m m a r iz e r e s u lts f r o m as tu d yab o u t a s s is te ds u ic id e in O re go n. A thi rd prop osed advert i se m entw ou l d fea ture am al e voi ce w arni ng that phy s i c i a n- a s s i s t e d s ui c i de i s a“ s l i ppe rys l ope ” be c aus e “ pe opl e w ho can’t c ons e nt – l i ke babi es – are bei ng ki l l ed. ” F i nal l y, i n a fourth p ropo se d radi o spo t , a s peaker w ou l d w arn thatas si st ed sui ci de “ turns do ct ors i nt o k i l l er s. ” N on e of the prop osed a d v e rtis e m e n ts w o u lde x p r e s s lym e n tio n I n itia tiv e 1 0 0 0 , a n de a c h w o u lde n dw ith ad is c lo s u r e th a t th e a d v e rtis e m e n t w a s s p o n s o r e db yH u m a n L if e . H um an L i fe ’ s e du ca t i on al cam pai gn never gotoff the grou nd , ho w ever , b e c au s e H u m a n L if

e f e a r e d th a t its p r o p o s e dc o m m u n ic a tio n s w o u lds u b je c t it to the r e qui r e m e nt s of

W a s hi ngt on’ s D i s c l os ur e L a w , al a w tha tH um a n L i f e c ont e nds v i o l at es i t s F i rstA m en d m en tri g h t s.

B . W as h i n gt on ’ s P u b l i c D i s c l os u r e L aw T he D i s c l os ur e L a w w a s e na c t e d byba l l oti ni t i a t i ve i n 1972, w i th the s u p p o rt o f

7 2 % o f th e v o tin g p u b lic . I t d e c la r e s a s W a s h in g to n s ta te ’s p u b lic pol i c y“ [ t ] ha tpol i t i c a l c a m pa i gn a nd l obby i ng c ontr i but i ons a nd e xpe ndi tur e s be f ul l ydi s c l os e d t o the publ i c a nd tha ts e c r e c yi s t o be a voi de d. ” W a s h. R e v. C ode § 4 2 .1 7 .0 1 0 ( 1 ) . I t a ls o s ta te s a s W a s h in g to n ’s p u b lic p o lic yth a t “f u ll a c c e s s to8

i nform at i on concerni ng the cond uctof go vernm enton every l evel m ustbe as sure d as a f un dam ent al and n ec es saryprec on di t i on t o the soun d g ov ernance of a f re e soci ety. ” I

d. § 4 2 .1 7 .0 1 0 ( 1 1 ) . U n d e rth e D is c lo s u r e L a w , th is p o lic yis im p le m e n te d th r o u g h d e ta ile d r e p o rtin g , r e g is tr a tio n , a n dd is c lo s u r e r e q u ir e m e n ts ( c ol l e c t i ve l y , “ di s c l os ur e r e qui r e m e nt s ” ) , w hi c h a r e a dm i ni s t e r e d a nd e nf or c e d by W as hi ng t on ’ s P ub l i c D i sc l osure C om m i ss i on (the “ C om m i ss i on ”) , a bi part i san c i t i z e n’ s c om m i s s i on w hos e f i ve m e m be r s a r e appoi nt e d bythe gove rnora nd c o n f irm e d b yth e s ta te s e n a te . A cc ordi ng t o the C om m i ss i on ’ s E xecut i ve D i re ct or, the D i sc l osure L aw

“ e nabl e s the publ i c t o ‘ f ol l ow the m one y ’ w i th r e s pe c tt o c a m pa i gns a nd l obby i ng” b yp r o v id in g f

o rth e c o lle c tio n o f

in f o rm a tio n a l f

o rm s , w h ic h b e c o m e p u b lic r e c or d. T he s e f

orm s a r e now e l e c tr oni c a l l ya va i l abl e i n s e a r c habl e f orm a tthr ough th e C o m m is s io n ’s w e b s ite . T h e C o m m is s io n ’s C h ie f T e c h n o lo g yO f

f ic e rr e p o rts tha ti t s w e bs i t e r e c e i ve s appr oxi m a t e l y14, 000 vi s i t or s pe rm onth. I n a ddi t i on, the m e d iau s e s f

in a n c ia l d a tain its r e p o rtin g . Se e, e . g. , R ic h a r dR o e s le r , I - 1000 A dvocat es R aki ngIt

In , S p o k e s m a n - R e v ie w , A p r . 3 0 , 2 0 0 8 ; S u s a n G ilm o r e , H ow Mon eyT alks on Ini t i at i ves , S e a tt l e T i m e s , N ov. 22, 2004. A s w e l l a s ga the r i ng d at a an d rep o rt s, th e C o m m i ssi o n p ro v i d es th e p u b l i c w i th ag g reg at e d at a, an al ysi s, a n d s u m m a r ie s in its b ie n n ia l “E le c tio n F in a n c in g F a c t B o o k .”9

A ti s s ue i n thi s appe a l a r e tw o a s pe c t s of the D i s c l os ur e L a w : ( 1) the r e qui r e m e nt s i m pos e d on “ pol i t i c a l c om m i tt e e s ” a nd ( 2) the r e qui r e m e nt s f or

“ i nde pe nde nte xpe ndi tur e s ” a nd “ pol i t i c a l a dve rt i s i ng. ” T he s e pr ovi s i ons do not pl ac e al i m i ton expend i tures for a dv ocac y; ra ther, they r equi re on l y thatcovered en t i t i es m ak e cert ai n p u b l i c d i scl o su res. 1. P ol i ti calC om m i tt ee s T h e D is c lo s u r e L a w d e f in e s a“p o litic a l c o m m itte e ” a s “a n yp e r s o n ( e x c e p t a c a ndi da t e ori ndi vi dua l de a l i ng w i th hi s orhe row n f unds orpr ope rty ) ha vi ng the e xpe c t a t i on of

r e c e i vi ng c ontr i but i ons orm a ki ng e xpe ndi tur e s i n s upportof , or oppos i t i on t o, a nyc a ndi da t e ora nyba l l otpr opos i t i on. ” W a s h. R e v. C ode § 4 2 .1 7 .0 2 0 ( 3 9 ) . A s c o n s tru e d b yW a s h in g to n c o u rts , th is d e f in itio n “s e ts f

o rth tw o al t ernat i ve pron gs un der w hi ch an i nd i vi du al or organi za t i on m aybecom e a po l i t i ca l com m i tt ee and subj ec tt o the A ct ’ s r eport i ng re qu i re m ent s. ” E ve rgre en Fre edom Fou nd . v. W

ash. E du c. A ss ’n , 4 9 P .3 d8 9 4 , 9 0 2 ( W a s h . C t. A p p . 2 0 0 2 ) . U nde rthe pr ong a ti s s ue he r e – the “ e xpe ndi tur e s ” pr ong – “ ape r s on or or ga ni z a t i on m a ybe c om e apol i t i c a l c om m i tt e e by. . . e xpe c t i ng t o m a ke or m aki ng expend i tures t o further e l ec t oral po l i t i ca l go al s. ” I d. a t 9 0 2

– 0 3 . T h is de f i ni t i on ha s be e n na rr ow e d byj udi c i a l c ons truc t i on t o c ove ronl ya n or ga ni z a t i on tha tha s a s i t s “ pr i m a ryorone of the pr i m a rypurpos e s ” t o “ a f f e c t , di r e c t l yor10

i ndi r e c t l y , gove rnm e nt a l de c i s i on m a ki ng bys upport i ng oroppos i ng c a ndi da t e s or bal l otprop osi t i on s. ” I

d. a t903 ( quot i ng S ta te v . Da n J . E v a n s Ca mp a i

g n C o mm . , 5 4 6 P .2 d 7 5 , 7 9 ( W a s h . 1 9 7 6 ) ) . A grou p’ s des i gn at i on as a “ po l i t i ca l com m i tt ee ” tri gg er s var i ou s di sc l osure r e qui r e m e nt s . F i r s t , a l l pol i t i c a l c om m i tt e e s m us tappoi ntatr e a s ur e ra nd ope n a b a n ka c c o u n t in th e s ta te o f W a s h in g to n . See W as h. R ev. C od e § 42 . 17 . 05 0(1). In addi t i on , they m ustre gi st erw i th the C om m i ss i on by fi l i ng a tw o-page P ol i t i ca l C om m i tt e e R e gi s tr a t i on F orm , w hi c h c ont a i ns i nf orm a t i on r e qui r e d bythe D i s c l os ur e L a w . T hi s i nf orm a t i on i nc l ude s the c om m i tt e e ’ s na m e a nd a ddr e s s ; the n am es an d ad d resses o f rel at ed an daffi l i at ed co m m i tt ees an dp erso n s; th e n am es, a d d r e s s e s , a n d title s o f

th e c o m m itte e ’s o f

f ic e r s a n da n yp e r s o n s au th o r iz e dto m ak e ex p en d i tu res fo r th e co m m i tt ee; a st at em en to f w h eth er th e o rg an i zat i o n i s a c ont i nui ng one ( i . e . , w he the ri tw a s e s t abl i s he d i n a nt i c i pa t i on of a nye l e c t i on ca m pai gn i n p art i cul ar ); the bal l otprop osi t i on or cand i dat e thatthe com m i tt ee s upport s oroppos e s ; how s urpl us f unds w i l l be di s tr i but e d i n the e ve ntof di s s ol ut i on; a nd the na m e , a ddr e s s , a nd t i t l e of a ny one w ho w orks f

orthe c o m m itte e to p e r f

o rm m in is te r ia l f

u n c tio n s . Se e id . § 4 2 .1 7 .0 4 0 . F i l i ng the re gi stra t i on form i s the sol e r equi re m enti m po se d o n p ol i t i ca l com m i tt ee s thatra i se or spend l es s than $ 5, 00 0 i n a ye arand thatra i se no m ore11

th a n $ 5 0 0 f

r o m a n ys in g le d o n o r . W a s h . A d m in . C o d e § 3 9 0 - 1 6 - 1 0 5 ( 2 ) ; see a l so W as h. R ev. C od e § 42 . 17 . 37 0(8) (autho ri zi ng the C om m i ss i on t o rel i eve pol i t i ca l com m i tt ee s of c ert ai n report i ng ob l i gat i on s) . P ol i t i ca l com m i tt ee s thatexce ed th e s e lim its m u s t s u b m it v a r io u s a d d itio n a l r e p o rts to th e C o m m is s io n . See W a s h. R e v. C ode §§ 42. 17. 080, 42. 17. 090. F i r s t , m onthl yr e port s a r e r e qui r e d i f the pol i t i c a l c om m i tt e e “ ha s r e c e i ve d ac ontr i but i on orm a de a n e xpe ndi tur e i n the prec edi ng ca l endar m on th and ei ther the t ot al contri bu t i on s r ec ei ved o r t ot al expend i tures m ade s i nce the l as tsuch re po rtexce eds tw o tho usand d ol l ar s. ” I d. § 42. 17. 080( 2) ( c ) . S e c ond, apol i t i c a l c om m i tt e e m us tf i l e pe r i odi c r e port s on ce rt ai n d at es re l at i ve t o the el ec t i on ati ss ue: (1) the tw enty- fi rs tday bef ore an el ect i o n , (2 ) th e sev en th d ay b efo re an el ect i o n , an d(3 ) th e t en th d ay o f th e fi rst m o n th a f te ra n e le c tio n . I

d. § 4 2 . 1 7 . 0 8 0 (2 )(a)– (b ). E ach p eri o d i c rep o rtm u st i nc l ude a n a c c ount i ng of the pol i t i c a l c om m i tt e e ’ s “ f unds on ha nd” a tthe be gi nni ng of

the r e port i ng pe r i od, i nc l udi ng “ [ t ] he s urpl us orde f i c i tof c ontr i but i ons ove re xpe ndi tur e s ” ; the s our c e a nd a m ountof c ontr i but i ons r e c e i ve d; th e s o u r c e a n d a m o u n t o f a n ylo a n s to b e u s e df

o rth e p o litic a l c o m m itte e ’s b e n e f it; a nd the i de nt i tyof

“ e a c h c a ndi da t e orpol i t i c a l c om m i tt e e t o w hi c h a nytr a ns f e rof fund s w as m ade, t og ether w i th the am ou nt s and dat es of such transfe rs . ” I d. § 4 2 .1 7 .0 9 0 ( 1 ) .12 2 . I nde pe nde nt Ex pe ndi t ur e s a nd Po l i t i c a lA dv e r t i s i ng A n ent i ty notsubj ec tt o the di sc l osure r equi re m ent s gov erni ng po l i t i ca l c o m m itte e s m a yb e r e q u ir e d n o n e th e le s s to d is c lo s e c e rta in in f o rm a tio n ab o u t its “in d e p e n d e n t e x p e n d itu r e s ” a n d “p o litic a l a d v e rtis in g .” F o re x a m p le , a c o rp o r a tio n th a t d o e s n o t q u a lif ya s ap o litic a l c o m m itte e b e c au s e o f its r e la tiv e ly l i m i t e d i nvol ve m e nti n pol i t i c a l a dvoc a c ym i ght , pr i ort o apa rt i c ul a re l e c t i on, d e c id e to s p e n d m o n e yo n as e r ie s o f r a d io a d v e rtis e m e n ts c r itic iz in g ac a n d id a te w h o s e v ie w s th e c o rp o r a tio n c o n s id e r s in im ic a l to its b u s in e s s in te r e s ts . See C i t i ze ns U ni ted , 1 3 0 S . C t . at9 1 3 (h o l d i n g th atco rp o rat i o n s h av e a F i rst Am e n d m e n tr i g h tt o m a k e i n d e p e n d e n te x p e n d i tu r e s ) . Un d e rth e Di s c l o s u r e L a w, th e c o rp o r a tio n m ig h t b e s u b je c t to d is c lo s u r e r e q u ir e m e n ts a s s o c ia te dw ith th is a c tiv itye v e n th o u g h th e c o rp o r a tio n d o e s n o t q u a lif ya s ap o litic a l c o m m itte e . A n “ i nde pe nde nte xpe ndi tur e ” i s “ a nye xpe ndi tur e tha ti s m a de i n s upportof o r i n o p p o si t i o n t o an y can d i d at e o r b al l o tp ro p o si t i o n an di s n o to th erw i se re qu i re d t o b e r eport ed. ” W as h. R ev. C od e § 42 . 17 . 10 0(1). D i sc l osure re qu i re m ent s are tri gg er ed i f, i n a gi ven el ec t i on , such an expend i ture e qu al s m ore th a n $ 1 0 0 o rif

its v a lu e c a n n o t r e a s o n ab lyb e e s tim a te d . I d. § 4 2. 17 . 10 0(2). If

an expend i ture c ross es thi s val uat i on thres ho l d, an ent i ty m ustsubm i t“ an i ni t i al re po rtof al l i nd ependentexpend i tures m ade duri ng the ca m pai gn ” up u nt i l that13

p o in t in tim e . I

d. T h e req u i red tw o -p ag e rep o rtm u sti n cl u d e th e n am e an dad d ress of the pers on fi l i ng the re po rt ; the nam e and addres s of e ac h p er son t o w ho m an in d e p e n d e n t e x p e n d itu r e w a s m a d e in th e a g g r e g a te a m o u n t o f m o r e th a n f

if ty dol l a r s ; the a m ount , da t e , a nd purpos e of e a c h s uc h e xpe ndi tur e ; a nd the t ot a l s um o f a ll in d e p e n d e n t e x p e n d itu r e s m a d e d u r in g th e c a m p a ig n . I d. § 4 2 .1 7 .1 0 0 ( 5 ) . A f te rs u b m ittin g th e in itia l r e p o rt, th e r e g u la te de n titym u s t s u b m it m o n th lyu p d a te re po rt s, bu tthi s r equi re m entappl i es on l y i f “ the re po rt i ng pers on has m ade an i nd ependentexpend i ture s i nce the dat e of the l as tprevi ou s r eportfi l ed. ” I d. § 4 2 .1 7 .1 0 0 ( 3 ) ( c ) . F in a lly , th r e e u p d a te s to th e in itia l r e p o rt a r e r e q u ir e do n c e rta in da t e s pe gge d t o the e l e c t i on a ti s s ue : ( 1) the tw e nty - f i r s tda ybe f

or e the e l e c t i on, ( 2) the s e ve nth da ybe f

or e the e l e c t i on, a nd ( 3) the t e nth da yof the m onth a f

t e rthe e le c tio n . Id . § 42. 17. 100( 3) . T he e nt i ty ’ s r e port i ng obl i ga t i ons c e a s e a f t e rthe p o s t- e le c tio n r e p o rt is f ile d . Id . In addi t i on t o d i sc l osures for i nd ependentexpend i tures , the D i sc l osure L aw s e t s f orth r e qui r e m e nt s f

or“ pol i t i c a l a dve rt i s i ng, ” de f i ne d a s “ a nya dve rt i s i ng d i sp l ays, n ew sp ap er ad s, b i l l b o ard s, si g n s, b ro ch u res, art i cl es, t ab l o i d s, fl yers, l e tt e r s , r a di o ort e l e vi s i on pr e s e nt a t i ons , orothe rm e a ns of m a s s c om m uni c a t i on, used for the pu rpose of app ea l i ng , di re ct l y or i nd i re ct l y, for vot es or for f i nanci al or other s up po rtor op po si t i on i n any el ec t i on cam pai gn . ” I d. § 4 2 . 1 7 . 0 2 0 ( 3 8 ) . An14

a dve rt i s e m e ntm us ti de nt i f yi t s s pons or : w r i tt e n pol i t i c a l a dve rt i s i ng m us ti nc l ude th e s p o n so r’s n am e a n d ad d re ss ; rad io an dtelev isio n ad s m u st state th e s p o n so r’s na m e ; a nd a dve rt i s i ng unde rt a ke n a s a n i nde pe nde nte xpe ndi tur e m us ts t a t e tha tthe a d v e rtis e m e n t w a s n o t ap p r o v e d b ya n yc a n d id a te . Se e i d. § 4 2 .1 7 .5 1 0 ( 1 )

– ( 4 ) . T he D i s c l os ur e L a w r e qui r e s s pe c i a l r e port s f orpol i t i c a l a dve rt i s i ng m a de tw e nty - one da y s be f

or e a n e l e c t i on a nd tha tha s af a i rm a rke tva l ue of

$1, 000 or m o r e . Id . § 4 2 . 1 7 . 1 0 3 (1 ). S u ch sp eci al rep o rt s m u sti n cl u d e th e n am e an dad d ress of the pe r s on m a ki ng the e xpe ndi tur e ; the na m e a nd a ddr e s s of the pe r s on t o w hom the expend i ture w as m ade; a det ai l ed desc ri pt i on of the expend i ture; the dat e that the e xpe ndi tur e w a s m a de a nd tha tthe a dve rt i s i ng w a s pr e s e nt e d t o the publ i c ; the a m ountof

the e xpe ndi tur e ; a nd the na m e of the c a ndi da t e orba l l otpr opos i t i on s u p p o rte d o ro p p o s e db yth e e x p e n d itu r e . Id . § 4 2. 17 . 10 3(3). T hese di sc l osure r equi re m ent s do n otappl y t o a “ new s i t em , fe ature, com m ent ary, or edi t ori al i n a re gu l ar l y s chedul ed new s m edi um thati s of pri m ary i nt e r e s tt o the ge ne r a l publ i c , tha ti s i n ane w s m e di um c ontr ol l e d byape r s on w ho se bu si ness i s thatnew s m edi um , and thati s notcontrol l ed by a c andi dat e or a po l i t i ca l com m i tt ee . ” I d. § 4 2 .1 7 .0 2 0 ( 1 5 ) ( b ) ( iv ) ( lis tin g n e w s m e d iae x c e p tio n s to the de f i ni t i on of “ c ontr i but i on” ) ; W a s h. A dm i n. C ode § 390- 16- 206 ( e xe m pt i ng new s m edi a f

rom i nd ependentexpend i ture di sc l osure r equi re m ent s) . N or do they15

appl y t o “ l ett er s t o the edi t or, new s or f ea ture art i cl es , edi t ori al com m entor re pl i es the r e t o i n ar e gul a r l ypubl i s he d ne w s pape r , pe r i odi c a l , oron ar a di o ort e l e vi s i on b r o a d c a s t w h e r e p a y m e n t f o rth e p r in te ds p a c e o rb r o a d c a s t tim e is n o t n o rm a lly r e qui r e d. ” W a s h. A dm i n. C ode § 390- 05- 290 ( l i s t i ng e xc e pt i ons t o the de f i ni t i on o f “p o litic a l a d v e rtis in g ” ) ; id. § 390- 16- 206 ( e xe m pt i ng the f or e goi ng f

r om po l i t i ca l advert i si ng di sc l osure r equi re m ent s) . C . P roce d u ralH i st ory O n A pri l 16 , 20 08 , H um an L i fe fi l ed thi s l aw sui t , se eki ng a dec l ar at i on that W a s h in g to n ’s D is c lo s u r e L a w is u n c o n s titu tio n a l a n da n in ju n c tio n a g a in s t its enforce m ent . O n A ug ust7, 20 08 , H um an L i fe m ov ed for s um m ary j ud gm ent . It s ubm i tt e d no e vi de nc e i n s upportof i t s m ot i on, i ns t e a d s t a t i ng tha ta l l r e l e va nt f a c t s w e r e s e tf

orth i n i t s ve r i f

i e d c om pl a i nt . I n oppos i t i on, the C om m i s s i on s ubm i tt e d de c l a r a t i ons a nd othe rdoc um e nt s c ont a i ni ng i nf orm a t i on aboutthe C om m i ss i on ’ s opera t i on s and the pu bl i c’ s use of the di sc l osure dat a i thad co m p il ed . In re p ly, H u m an L ife s u b m itted ex ce rp ts o f its C E O D an K en n ed y’s de pos i t i on. W hi l e H um a n L i f

e ’ s s um m a ryj udgm e ntm ot i on r e m a i ne d pe ndi ng, W a s hi ngt on vot e r s appr ove d I ni t i a t i ve 1000 on E l e c t i on D a y , N ove m be r4, 2008, e f f e c t i ve l yl e ga l i z i ng phy s i c i a n- a s s i s t e d s ui c i de . T he r e a f t e r , on J a nua ry8, 2009,16

the di s tr i c tc ourtde ni e d H um a n L i f e ’ s s um m a ryj udgm e ntm ot i on. A f t e rrul i ng thatIni t i at i ve 10 00 ’ s pas sa ge di d n otm oo tH um an L i fe ’ s l aw sui t , the di stri ctcourt r e j e c t e d H um a n L i f

e ’ s c ont e nt i on tha tthe D i s c l os ur e L a w ’ s r e qui r e m e nt s f or

“ po l i t i ca l com m i tt ee s, ” “ i nd ependentexpend i tures , ” and “ po l i t i ca l advert i si ng ” are unc ons t i tut i ona l . F i na l j udgm e ntw a s e nt e r e d on J a nua ry23, 2009. W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on ove rthe di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s f i na l j udgm e ntpur s ua ntt o 28 U . S . C . § 1291, and “ [w ] e r evi ew the const i tut i on al i ty of ast atut e de nov o. ” U ni ted States v. V ongx ay , 59 4 F . 3d 11 11 , 11 14 (9th C i r. 20 10 ). I I . DI S CUS S I ON A . J us t i c i a bi l i t y

“ [T ] he C on st i tut i on m andat es thatpri or t o o ur exerc i se of j uri sdi ct i on there e x is t ac o n s titu tio n a l ‘c a s e o rc o n tr o v e r s y ,’ th a t th e is s u e s p r e s e n te da r e ‘d e f in ite and con cr et e, no thypo thet i ca l or abstra ct . ’ ” T h o m a s v . A n c h o r a g e E q u a l R ig h ts C om m ’n , 220 F . 3d 1134, 1138 ( 9th C i r . 2000) ( e n ba nc ) ( quot i ng R y. M ai l A ss ’n v. C o rsi , 3 2 6 U .S . 8 8 , 9 3 (1 9 4 5 )) . T h u s, b ef o re re ac h in g th e m er it s o f H u m an L ife’s c o n s titu tio n a l c la im s , w e m u s t d e te rm in e w h e th e rth is ap p e a l is ju s tic iab le . See L ong B e ac h A r e a Cham be rof C om m e r c e v . C i t

yof L ong B e ac h, 603 F . 3d 684, 689 ( 9th C i r . 2010) . W e a gr e e w i th the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s r e a s oni ng a nd c onc l ude tha tthe appe a l pr e s e nt s ac a s e orc ontr ove r s ye ve n though H um a n L i f e r e f r a i ne d f r om17

e nga gi ng i n i t s pl a nne d publ i c e duc a t i on c a m pa i gn, a nd w e f i nd tha tthe controvers y r em ai ns l i ve even aft erthe pass age of I ni t i at i ve 10 00 al m osttw o years a go. 1 . S ta n d i n g a n d R i p en ess T o sat i sfy A rt i cl e III’s case or co n tro v ersy req u i rem en t , H u m an L i fe m u st e s t abl i s h s t a ndi ng t o s ue . “ [ T ] he i rr e duc i bl e c ons t i tut i ona l m i ni m um of s t a ndi ng c ont a i ns thr e e e l e m e nt s ” : the pl a i nt i f f m us tde m ons tr a t e ( 1) a n i nj ury - i n- f a c t , ( 2) c aus a t i on, a nd ( 3) al i ke l i hood tha tthe i nj uryw i l l be r e dr e s s e d byade c i s i on i n the p la in tif f’s f a v o r . L u ja n v . D e fe n de rs o f W ild life , 5 0 4 U .S . 5 5 5 , 5 6 0 ( 1 9 9 2 ) . B e c au s e th e c o u rt’s r o le is “n e ith e rto is s u e a d v is o ryo p in io n s n o rto d e c la r e r ig h ts in h yp o th e tic a l c a s e s ,” th e c a s e o rc o n tr o v e r s ys ta n d a r da ls o r e q u ir e s th a t ac la im b e r ip e f o rr e v ie w . T

hom as , 220 F . 3d a t1138 ( “ T he c ons t i tut i ona l c om pone ntof the r i pe ne s s i nqui ryi s of t e n tr e a t e d unde rthe rubr i c of s t a ndi ng . . . . ” ) . I n the c ont e xtof

pr e - e nf or c e m e ntc ons t i tut i ona l c ha l l e nge s , w he r e the pl a i nt i f f ha s not ye tbeen penal i ze d for vi ol at i ng the chal l enged st atut e, w e have hel d that“ nei ther the m e r e e xi s t e nc e of

apr os c r i pt i ve s t a tut e norage ne r a l i z e d thr e a tof pr os e c ut i on sa t i sf i es the ‘ ca se or controvers y’ re qu i re m ent . ” I d. a t 1 1 3 9 . R a th e r , in g e n e r a l, a c a s e orc ontr ove r s ye xi s t s onl yi f the pl a i nt i f

f f a c e s a“ ge nui ne thr e a tof i m m i ne nt prosec ut i on . ” I

d.18

H o w ev er, w h en a ch al l en g ed st atu t e ri sk s ch i l l i n g th e ex erci se o f F i rst A m e ndm e ntr i ght s , “ the S upr e m e C ourtha s di s pe ns e d w i th r i gi d s t a ndi ng re qu i re m ent s, ” Cal . P ro-L i f e Cou nci l

, Inc. v. G etm an (C

PL C–I) , 328 F . 3d 1088, 1094 ( 9th C i r . 2003) , a nd r e c ogni z e d “ s e l f - c e ns or s hi p” a s “ aha rm tha tc a n be re al i ze d even w i tho utan ac tual prosec ut i on , ” V i rgi ni a v. A m . B oo ks el ler s A ss ’n , 4 8 4 U .S . 3 8 3 , 3 9 3 ( 1 9 8 8 ) ; see a l so D om brow skiv. P

f ister , 380 U . S . 479, 486 ( 1965) ( “ B e c aus e of

the s e ns i t i ve na tur e of

c ons t i tut i ona l l ypr ot e c t e d e xpr e s s i on, w e h av e n o treq u i red th atal l o f th o se su b j ectt o o v erb ro ad reg u l at i o n s ri sk prosec ut i on t o t es tthei r r i gh t s. ”) . A s w e have hel d, w here a pl ai nt i ff has r ef ra i ned fr om engagi ng i n exp re ss i ve ac t i vi ty f or fe arof prosec ut i on un der the chal l enged s ta tu te , s u c h s e lf

- c e n s o r s h ip is a“c o n s titu tio n a llys u f f ic ie n t in ju ry ” a s lo n g a s it is ba s e d on “ a n a c tua l a nd w e l l - f ounde d f e a r ” tha tthe c ha l l e nge d s t a tut e w i l l be e n f o r c e d . C PL C–I, 3 2 8 F .3 d a t 1 0 9 3 , 1 0 9 5 ; see a l so A ri z. R i gh t to L i f e P A Cv. B a yless , 32 0 F . 3d 10 02 , 10 06 (9th C i r. 20 03 ) ( fi nd i ng thatan ent i ty thatw as

“ forc ed t o m od i fyi t s s peec h and behavi or t o com pl y w i th the st atut e” had suffe re d i nj ury e ven tho ug h i thad “ nei ther vi ol at ed the st atut e nor been subj ec tt o p enal t i es f ordoi ng s o” ) . S uc h f

e a re xi s t s i f

the “ i nt e nde d s pe e c h a r guabl yf a l l s w i thi n the st atut e’ s r ea ch. ” C

PL C–I, 3 2 8 F .3 da t 1 0 9 5 .19

Th e p r e s e n tap p e a l i s i n d i s t i n g u i s h ab l e f r o m C PL C–I, w here w e f

ou nd that th e C a lif o rn iaP r o - L if

e C o u n c il ( “C P L C ” ) h a de s tab lis h e ds ta n d in g e v e n th o u g h it h a d n o t b e e n s u b

je c t to p r o s e c u tio n u n d e rth e s ta tu te it c h a lle n g e d . T h e s ta tu te re qu i re d d i sc l osures for any com m un i ca t i on that“ un am bi gu ou sl y urges a part i cul ar re sul ti n an el ec t i on . ” I d. at10 96 (e m ph as i s om i tt ed). B ec ause C P L C “ fe ar ed enforce m entproceedi ng s m i gh tbe i ni t i at ed, ” i d. a t1094, C P L C r e f r a i ne d f r om s pe ndi ng m one yt o di s tr i but e vot e rgui de s tha ta dvoc a t e d pr o- l i f e pos i t i ons im p lic a te d b yp e n d in g b a llo t in itia tiv e s , id. at 1 0 9 2

– 9 3 . E v en th o u g h C P L C ’s vo t ergu i des di d n otuse “ expl i ci tw ords of advo ca cy , ” w e c on cl ud ed thatthey a r g u ab lyf

e ll w ith in th e s ta tu te ’s p r o v is io n s . I d. a t1 0 9 5 . T h u s , a l th o u g h we caut i on ed that“ [t ] he se l f- ce nsorshi p d oo r t o st andi ng do es no top en for e very p la in tif f ,” w e c o n c lu d e d th a t C P L C ’s s e lf - c e n s o r s h ip w a s b a s e do n ar e a s o n ab le fe arof prosec ut i on and w as there fore a “ const i tut i on al l y r ec og ni ze d i nj ury. ” I d. B ec ause H um an L i fe ’ s dec i si on t o ref ra i n from i m pl em ent i ng i t s e du ca t i on al p r o g r a m wa s b a s e d o n ar e a s o n ab l e f e a ro f e n f o r c e m e n to f

th e Di s c l o s u r e L a w, we concl ud e thatH um an L i fe has e st abl i shed a c as e or c on trovers y. H um an L i fe p r o d u c e d e v id e n c e o f

p la n n e d c o m m u n ic a tio n s th a t a r g u ab lyf a ll w ith in th e a m b it of the st atut e i ti s c hal l engi ng . T he D i sc l osure L aw i m po se s obl i gat i on s on an en t i ty w h en o n e o f i t s “ p ri m ary p u rp o ses” i s “ t o affect, d i rect l y o r i n d i rect l y,20

gove rnm e nt a l de c i s i on m a ki ng bys upport i ng oroppos i ng c a ndi da t e s orba l l ot prop osi t i on s. ” E ve rgre en , 49 P . 3d a t903 ( quot i ng E v ans , 546 P . 2d a t79) (i n t erp ret i n g th e d efi n i t i o n o f “ p o l i t i cal co m m i tt ee”). D i scl o su re o b l i g at i o n s al so appl yt o pol i t i c a l a dve rt i s i ng “ us e d f orthe purpos e of

appe a l i ng, di r e c t l yor i nd i re ct l y, for vot es , ” W as h. R ev. C od e § 42 . 17 . 02 0(38 ), and t o exp endi tures

“ m ade i n sup po rtof or i n o pp osi t i on t o any cand i dat e or bal l otprop osi t i on ” that m e e t c e rta in m o n e ta ryth r e s h o ld s , id. § 4 2 .1 7 .1 0 0 . G iv en th e D isclo su re L aw ’s ap p a r e n t c o v e r a g e , H u m a n L if e ’s f e a ro f b e in g s u b

je c t to its e n f

o r c e m e n t is w e ll foun ded, and H um an L i fe “ do es no thave t o aw ai tthe consum m at i on of threa t ened in ju ryto o b ta in p r e v e n tiv e r e lie f .” Ar i z . Ri g h t to Li f e PA C , 320 F . 3d a t1006 ( quot i ng R eg’l

R ai l R eorg. A ct

Cases , 41 9 U . S . 10 2, 14 3 (19 74 )) . 2 . M o o tn ess T he pa s s a ge of

I ni t i a t i ve 1000 i n 2008 doe s nota l t e rthe j us t i c i abi l i tyof H u m a n L if

e ’s c o n s titu tio n a l c h a lle n g e b e c au s e th a t c h a lle n g e f a lls s q u a r e lyw ith in the cl as s of c as es “ capabl e of r epet i t i on , ye tevadi ng re vi ew . ” Se e, e . g. , D avis v . FE C , 1 2 8 S . C t. 2 7 5 9 , 2 7 7 0 ( 2 0 0 8 ) ; F E Cv . W is . R i ght to L i f e, I nc . ( W RTL) , 551 U .S . 4 4 9 , 4 6 2 ( 2 0 0 7 ) ; B e llo tti , 435 U . S . a t774. T hi s “ e s t abl i s he d e xc e pt i on” t o the m ootne s s doc tr i ne appl i e s w he r e “ ( 1) the c ha l l e nge d a c t i on i s i n i t s dur a t i on t oo sh o rtt o b e fu l l y l i t i g at ed p ri o r t o cessat i o n o r ex p i rat i o n ; an d(2 ) th ere i s a21

r e a s o n ab l e e x p e c t a t i o n th a tth e s a me c o mp l a i n i n g p a rtyw i l l b e s u b j e c tt o th e s a me ac t i on agai n. ” D a v is , 128 S . C t . a t2769 ( quot i ng W RTL , 5 5 1 U. S . a t4 6 2 ) . As we ha ve r e c ogni z e d, the e xc e pt i on f r e que nt l ya r i s e s i n e l e c t i on c a s e s “ be c aus e the in h e r e n tlyb r ie f

d u r a tio n o f

a n e le c tio n is a lm o s t in v a r iab lyto o s h o rt to e n ab le f u ll l i t i gat i on on the m er i t s. ” P orterv. Jones , 3 1 9 F .3 d4 8 3 , 4 9 0 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) ; se e al s o, e . g. , W

RTL , 551 U . S . a t462 ( r e vi e w i ng ac ha l l e nge t o f e de r a l l i m i t s on c o rp o r a te e le c tio n e e r in g e x p e n d itu r e s a f te rth e r e le v a n t p r im a rye le c tio n ) ; N orm an v. R ee d , 5 0 2 U .S . 2 7 9 , 2 8 7

– 8 8 ( 1 9 9 2 ) ( r e v ie w in g ac h a lle n g e to s ta te r e q u ir e m e n ts g o v e rn in g th e u s e o f

an a m e b yan e w p o litic a l p a rtya f te rth e r e le v a n t c o u n ty e le c tio n ) ; B e llo tti , 435 U . S . a t774 ( r e vi e w i ng ac ha l l e nge t o as t a t e ba n on c orpor a t e e xpe ndi tur e s t o i nf l ue nc e vot e s on r e f

e r e ndum pr opos a l s a f

t e rthe r e le v a n t r e f

e r e n d u m v o te ) ; Ala s ka Ri g h t to Li f e Co m m . v . Mi le s (

ARTLC) , 441 F . 3d 77 3, 77 9 (9th C i r. 20 06 ) ( re vi ew i ng a c hal l enge t o st at e di sc l osure provi si on s a ft er th e r e le v a n t b a llo t in itia tiv e v o te ) ; C PL C–I, 3 2 8 F .3 da t 1 0 9 5 n .4 ( s a m e ) ; R ei ch v. L o ca l 3 9 6, In t ’l

B h d. o f T ea m sters , 97 F . 3d 1269, 1272 n. 5 ( 9th C i r . 1996) ( r e vi e w i ng ac ha l l e nge t o w i thhol di ng i nf orm a t i on f

r om ac a ndi da t e a f

t e rthe cand i dat e’ s opp ortun i ty t o b e e l ec t ed had p as se d). T h e p resen tap p eal i s a case i n p o i n t . A l th o u g h H u m an L i fe fi l ed su i tal m o st s e v e n m o n th s b e f

o r e th e N o v e m b e r2 0 0 8 v o te o n I n itia tiv e 1 0 0 0 , c o m p le te22

litig a tio n o f

H u m a n L if

e ’s c la im r e q u ir e s ac o n s id e r ab lylo n g e rp e r io do f tim e . Indeed, thi s l i t i gat i on cont i nu es near l y tw o years af t erthe Ini t i at i ve 10 00 vo t e has c om e a nd gone . A s w i th m os te l e c t i on c a s e s , w e ha ve l i tt l e di f f i c ul tyc onc l udi ng th a tth e d u r a t i o n e l e m e n to f th e “ c ap ab l e o f

r e p e t i t i o n , y e te v a d i n g r e v i e w” e x c e p tio n ap p lie s to th e c ir c u m s ta n c e s h e r e . A s fo r th e reaso n ab l e ex p ect at i o n req u i rem en t , w e co n cl u d e th ere i s a r e a s o n ab le e x p e c ta tio n th a t H u m a n L if e a g a in w ill b e s u b

je c t to s e lf

- c e n s o r s h ip if th e D i scl o su re L aw ’ s co n st i tu t i o n al i ty rem ai n s i n d o u b t . H u m an L i fe i s a po l i t i ca l l y a ct i ve organi za t i on thathas bee n h eavi l y i nv ol ved i n p ub l i c debat es aboutpr o- l i f

e i s s ue s i n the pa s ta nd i nt e nds t o unde rt a ke f utur e c om m uni c a t i ons lik e th o s e it w is h e d to m a k e in c o n ju n c tio n w ith th e I n itia tiv e 1 0 0 0 v o te . T h is is s uf f i c i e ntt o e s t abl i s h ar e a s onabl e e xpe c t a t i on tha tH um a n L i f e w i l l f a c e the p r o s p e c t o f

e n f o r c e m e n t o f

th e D is c lo s u r e L a w a g a in . Se e, e . g. , W RTL , 55 1 U . S . at 46 3 (re j ec t i ng a m oo tness ar gu m enti n a sui tby an i deol og i ca l advo ca cy c o rp o r a tio n , s ta tin g th a t it “c r e d ib lyc la im e dth a t it p la n n e do n ru n n in g ‘m a te r ia lly s i m i l a r ’ f utur e t a r ge t e d br oa dc a s ta ds m e nt i oni ng ac a ndi da t e w i thi n the bl a c kout pe r i od a nd the r e i s no r e a s on t o be l i e ve tha tthe F E C w i l l ‘ r e f r a i n f r om pr os e c ut i ng v io la tio n s ’ o f

B C R A ” ( c ita tio n s o m itte d ) ) ; ARTLC , 441 F . 3d a t779 ( r e j e c t i ng a m oo tness ar gu m entw here no np rofi tA K R T L pl anned t o eng age i n a rout i ne,23

i deol og i ca l t el em arket i ng ca m pai gn w hen “ the prov i si on s of A l as ka l aw c h a lle n g e d b yA K R T L r e m a in in p la c e ” ) ; C PL C–I, 328 F . 3d a t1095 n. 4 ( r e j e c t i ng am o o tn e s s a r g u m e n t w h e r e a n is s u e a d v o c a c yc o rp o r a tio n p la n n e dto d is tr ib u te vo t ergu i des a s i thad i n the pasti n the fa ce of st at e di sc l osure r equi re m ent s) .

B . F ac i alC h al l e n ge s t o t h e D i s c l os u r e L aw A tthe he a rtof

H um a n L i f

e ’ s appe a l i s i t s c ont e nt i on tha tc e rt a i n a s pe c t s of the D i sc l osure L aw ar e f ac i al l y uncon st i tut i on al . In part i cul ar , H um an L i fe ar gu es tha tthe D i s c l os ur e L a w ’ s de f i ni t i ons of

“ pol i t i c a l c om m i tt e e , ” “ i nde pe nde nt e xpe ndi tur e , ” a nd “ pol i t i c a l a dve rt i s i ng” i m pos e bur de ns tha tc a nnotbe j us t i f i e d by W a s h in g to n S ta te ’s in te r e s t in d is c lo s u r e a n da r e th e r e f o r e u n c o n s titu tio n a l. W e be gi n byi de nt i f

y i ng the appl i c abl e l e ve l of j udi c i a l s c rut i ny . W e the n di s c us s the g o v e rn m e n t a l i n t e r e s ts u p p o rt i n g th e Di s c l o s u r e L a w’ s r e q u i r e m e n t s . F i n a l l y , we turn t o H um a n L i f

e ’ s a r gum e nt s tha tc e rt a i n D i s c l os ur e L a w pr ovi s i ons a r e not s u f f ic ie n tlyta ilo r e d to th a t in te r e s t. 1. S tan d ard of R evi ew T he pa rt i e s di s put e the l e ve l of j udi c i a l s c rut i nyappl i c abl e t o W a s hi ngt on S ta te ’s d is c lo s u r e r e q u ir e m e n ts , a n din d e e d , th e r e h a s b e e n r o o m f o rd e b a te o n th is is s u e g iv e n th is c ir c u it’s w r e s tlin g w ith th e s ta n d a r do f r e v ie w ap p r o p r ia te in di s c l os ur e c a s e s . T he S upr e m e C ourt ’ s s e m i na l c a m pa i gn f i na nc e de c i s i on,24

B uckleyv. V

al eo , m apped the basi c di st i nct i on betw ee n fi nanci al l i m i t at i on s, w hi ch

“ nece ss ar i l y r educe[] the qu ant i ty of e xp re ss i on by re stri ct i ng the nu m ber of i ss ues di s c us s e d, the de pth of

the i re xpl or a t i on, and the s i z e of the audi e nc e r e a c he d, ” a nd di sc l osure r equi re m ent s, w hi ch “ i m po se no ce i l i ng on cam pai gn -r el at ed ac t i vi t i es . ” B uckleyv. V

al eo , 4 2 4 U . S . 1 , 1 9 , 6 4 (1 9 7 6 ) (p er cu ri am ). Itn o t ed th at , i n co n trast to e x p e n d itu r e a n d c o n tr ib u tio n lim ita tio n s , “d is c lo s u r e r e q u ir e m e n ts –c e rta in lyin m os tappl i c a t i ons – appe a rt o be the l e a s tr e s tr i c t i ve m e a ns of c urbi ng the e vi l s of ca m pai gn i gn orance and corrup t i on thatC on gres s f ou nd t o exi st . ” I

d. a t 6 8 . H o w ev er, th e C o u rtal so reco g n i zed th at“ si g n i fi can ten cro ach m en t s o n F i rst A m endm entri gh t s of the sortthatcom pel l ed di sc l osure i m po se s c anno tbe j ust i fi ed by a m er e s ho w i ng of som e l egi t i m at e gov ernm ent al i nt er es t . ” Id . at64 . R ather, the B uckley C ourtappl i e d “ e xa c t i ng s c rut i ny ” t o the di s c l os ur e r e qui r e m e nt s a nd

“ i ns i s t e d tha tthe r e be a‘ r e l e va ntc orr e l a t i on’ or‘ s ubs t a nt i a l r e l a t i on’ be tw e e n the go vernm ent al i nt er es tand the i nform at i on re qu i re d t o b e di sc l osed. ” I d. a t68 (f oo tno t es om i tt ed). D es pi t e the B uckleyC o u rt’s c le a re n d o r s e m e n t o f “e x a c tin g s c ru tin y ,” c o n f u s io n e m e r g e d in o u rc ir c u it a s to th e le v e l o f ju d ic ia l s c ru tin yap p lic ab le to c ons t i tut i ona l c ha l l e nge s t o c a m pa i gn f i na nc e di s c l os ur e r e qui r e m e nt s . M uc h of th e c o n fu sio n ca n b e tra ce d to o u r in it ial i n terp re tati o n o f th e S u p re m e C o u rt’s25

de c i s i on i n FEC v . M

a s s a c h u s e t t

s Ci t i z e n s f o rLi f e, I n c . ( M CFL) , 479 U . S . 238 ( 1986) . I n M CF

L , the C ou rtconsi dere d the const i tut i on al l y of afe dera l p r o h ib itio n o n c o rp o r a te in d e p e n d e n t e x p e n d itu r e s a s ap p lie dto M C F L , a n o n p r o f it, n o n - s to c k , id e o lo g ic a l c o rp o r a tio n n o t u n lik e H u m a n L if e . I d. at 241–42. A l though M C F L di d notqua l i f ya s a“ pol i t i c a l c om m i tt e e ” unde rthe f e de r a l s t a tut e , the n- e xi s t i ng l a w pr ohi bi t e d a nyc orpor a t i on f r om m a ki ng i nd ependentexpend i tures un l es s the corporat i on es t abl i shed a s epar at e, se gregat ed f u n d c o n ta in in g m o n ie s s p e c if ic a llye a rm a rk e df

o rc a m p a ig n s p e n d in g . I d. a t 2 5 3 . T h i s sep arat e fu n d w o u l d b e su b j ectt o “ p o l i t i cal co m m i tt ee” req u i rem en t s, i nc l udi ng “ [ d] e t a i l e d r e c or d ke e pi ng a nd di s c l os ur e obl i ga t i ons , a l ong w i th the dutyt o appoi ntatr e a s ur e ra nd c us t odi a n of the r e c or ds , ” thus e s s e nt i a l l yr e qui r i ng M C F L “ t o ass um e am ore s op hi st i ca t ed organi za t i on al form . ” I d. a t 2 5 4 ; see a l

so ARTLC , 441 F . 3d a t791 ( di s t i ngui s hi ng the pr ovi s i ons a ti s s ue i n M CF L b ecau se the y“ r e qui r e s truc tur a l c ha nge s ” ) . T he C ourtf ound tha tthe “ pr a c t i c a l e f f e c t ” of i m pos i ng s uc h r e qui r e m e nt s on or ga ni z a t i ons l i ke M C F L w a s t o m a ke “ e nga gi ng i n p rot ec t ed spee ch a s ever el y dem andi ng t as k, ” M CF L , 4 7 9 U . S. a t256, the r e by

“ di re ct l y l i m i t i ng the abi l i ty of s uch o rgani za t i on s t o eng age i n core pol i t i ca l spee ch, ” i d. at25 4. C on si deri ng the as -app l i ed chal l enge, the M CFL C ou rt26

subj ec t ed the fe dera l prov i si on t o stri ctsc rut i ny re vi ew and con cl ud ed thati tw as u n c o n s titu tio n a l a s ap p lie d to M C F L . I d. a t 2 5 6 . T h a t M CFL i nv ol ved a fi nanci al l i m i t at i on ra ther than a di sc l osure r e qui r e m e nti s a n a r guabl e ba s i s f ordi s t i ngui s hi ng the r a t i ona l e f orappl y i ng the s tr i c ts c rut i nys t a nda r d i n M CFL f r om the appl i c a t i on of

the e xa c t i ng s c rut i ny s t a nda r d i n the di s c l os ur e c ont e xti n B uckley . H ow ever , because the M CFL C ou rt di sc usse d i t s app l i ca t i on of stri ctsc rut i ny i n t erm s of the on er ou s di sc l osure re qu i re m ent s i m po se d u po n segre gat ed fund s ( ra ther than i n t erm s of the fi nanci al l i m i t a t i ons i m pos e d on c orpor a t i ons ) , w e r e a d the tw o c a s e s a s be i ng i n t e ns i on w ith o n e a n o th e r . O ura na l y s i s i n C

PL C–I re fl ec t s thi s i nt erpret at i on of B uckleya nd M CF L as i nc ons i s t e nt . I n C

PL C–I, an i deol og i ca l advo ca cycorporat i on chal l enged C a l i f orni a ’ s r e qui r e m e nttha t“ pol i t i c a l c om m i tt e e s ” di s c l os e i nf orm a t i on about fi nanci al ac t i vi t i es un dert aken t o “ expres sl y a dv ocat e the pass age or defe atof a bal l otm ea sure . ” C

PL C–I, 328 F . 3d a t1092. I n l i ghtof the di f f e r i ng s t a nda r ds of r e vi e w appl i e d i n B uckley a nd M CF L , w e s t at ed that“ the S up re m e C ou rthas bee n l e s s tha n c l e a ra s t o the pr ope rl e ve l of j udi c i a l s c rut i nyw e m us tappl yi n de c i di ng the const i tut i on al i ty of di sc l osure r egul at i on s. ” I d. a t1101 n. 16. W e r e a s one d,

“ G i ven thatthe M CFL C ou rtconsi dere d F E C A ’ s di sc l osure r equi re m ent s t o b e a27

se vere bu rden on po l i t i ca l spee ch for m ul t i -purpo se organi za t i on s, w e m ustanal yz e the C al i forni a s t atut e und erstri ctsc rut i ny. ” I d. “ N otw i ths t a ndi ng B uckley , ” we th erefo re h el d th atth e stri ctscru t i n y st an d ard ap p l i es t o d i scl o su re req u i rem en t s, a n d w e r e m a n d e d to th e d is tr ic t c o u rt to ap p lyth a t te s t. I d. F ol l ow i ng ourde c i s i on i n C PL C–I, the w a t e r s of

the appl i c abl e s t a nda r d of r e vi e w w e r e f

urthe rm uddi e d bythe S upr e m e C ourt ’ s de c i s i on i n McCon nel l v. FE C , 5 4 0 U. S . 9 3 ( 2 0 0 3 ) . C o n s i d e r i n g af e d e r a l c a m p a i g n f

i n a n c e d i s c l o s u r e l a w, Mc C o n n e ll

uphe l d the r e qui r e m e nttha ta nype r s on m a ki ng di s bur s e m e nt s of $1 0, 00 0 o r m ore i n a ca l endar y ear f or el ec t i on ee ri ng com m un i ca t i on s m ustfi l e a s t a t e m e ntw i th the F E C i de nt i f y i ng the pe rt i ne nte l e c t i on a nd a l l pe r s ons s ha r i ng th e c o s ts o f

th e d is b u r s e m e n ts . Id . at19 4. T he Mc C o n n e ll C o u rt d idn o t e x p lic itly d e s c r ib e th e le v e l o f

s c ru tin yap p lie dto th e d is c lo s u r e r e q u ir e m e n ts , s ta tin g o n ly thatthe re qu i re m ent s w er e s up po rt ed by “ i m po rt antst at e i nt er es t s. ” I d. at19 6. In i t s anal ys i s, the Mc C o n n e ll C ou rtappeare d t o end orse B uckley ’s us e of e xa c t i ng s c ru tin y , s ta tin g th a t B uckley“ am pl y s up po rt s app l i ca t i on of [the] di sc l osure r e q u ir e m e n ts ” a t is s u e . I d. H ow e ve r , i tdi d notdi s t i ngui s h M CFL o rits ap p lic a tio n o f

th e s tr ic t s c ru tin ys ta n d a r d . Id . A ft er Mc C o n n e ll augm ent ed the confusi on re gardi ng the appl i cabl e s t andard of re vi ew i n d i sc l osure c as es , ou r c i rc ui tbegan t o avo i d the i ss ue ra ther than28

s ta tin g th e ap p r o p r ia te le v e l o f s c ru tin yin a n yg iv e n c o n te x t. F o re x a m p le , in ARTLC , rath er th an att em p t i n g t o u n t an g l e th e co n fl i ct i n g d o ctri n e, w e fi rst a c k n o w le d g e d th a t th e ap p lic ab le s ta n d a r do f r e v ie w w a s “s o m e w h a t u n c le a r ,” ARTLC , 44 1 F . 3d at78 7, and then w e r es ol ved t o “ as sum e w i tho utdeci di ng that stri ctsc rut i ny appl i es t o al l of the chal l enged d i sc l osure r equi re m ent s, ” id. a t 7 8 8 . T he f ol l ow i ng y e a ri n Cal i

f orni a P ro-L i

f e Cou nci l

, Inc. v. R an do l

ph (C PL C–II) , 50 7 F . 3d 11 72 (9th C i r. 20 07 ), w e a gai n avo i ded d ec i di ng the st andard of revi ew i s s ue , c onc l udi ng tha tthe l a w of the c a s e , a s e s t abl i s he d i n C PL C–I, re qu i re d ap p lic a tio n o f

th e s tr ic t s c ru tin ys ta n d a r d . Id . a t1177 n. 5 ( “ W e ne e d notr e s ol ve any pot ent i al confl i ctbecause w e are bo un d b y the ‘ l aw of the ca se ’ t o app l y s tri ct s c rut i ny . ” ) . F i na l l y , i n Ca n y o n Fe rr yR o a d B a p tis t Ch u r c h v . U

n s w o r th , 556 F . 3d 1 0 2 1 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) , a f te rla m e n tin g th a t th e d e g r e e o f s c ru tin yap p lic ab le to di s c l os ur e r e qui r e m e nt s “ i s s om e w ha tunc l e a r , due i n pa rtt o a r guabl yi nc ons i s t e nt p r e c e d e n t,” w e s ta te d , “W e d o n o t n e e dto d e c id e th is c o m p le x q u e s tio n to adj ud i ca t e thi s c as e. ” I

d. a t1031. R ec entS up re m e C ou rtdeci si on s have e l i m i nat ed the apparentconfusi on as t o the st andard of revi ew appl i cabl e i n d i sc l osure c as es . T he C ou rthas c l ar i fi ed thata c am pai gn fi nance di sc l osure r equi re m enti s c on st i tut i on al i f i tsurvi ves e xa c t i ng s c rut i ny , m e a ni ng tha ti ti s s ubs t a nt i a l l yr e l a t e d t o as uf f i c i e nt l yi m port a nt29

gove rnm e nt a l i nt e r e s t . I n D oe v. R ee d , 13 0 S . C t . 28 11 (201 0), the S up re m e C ou rt e xa m i ne d as t a tut e author i z i ng publ i c di s c l os ur e of the s i gna t or i e s t o aba l l ot i n i t i at i v e. In ex p l ai n i n g w h y d i scl o su re req u i rem en t s w ere su b j ectt o th e l ess dem andi ng st andard of revi ew of exact i ng sc rut i ny, the R ee d C ou rtem ph as i ze d thatthe st atut e a ti ss ue w as “ no ta prohi bi t i on on spee ch, bu ti nst ea d a d isclo su re re qu i re m ent . ” I

d. a t2818. A s the C ourthe l d i n C i t i ze ns U ni ted , “ di sc l osure r e qui r e m e nt s m a ybur de n the abi l i tyt o s pe a k, butthe y‘ i m pos e no c e i l i ng on ca m pai gn -r el at ed ac t i vi t i es ’ and ‘ do no tpreventanyone fr om speaki ng . ’ ” C i t i z e ns U ni ted , 130 S . C t . a t914 ( quot i ng B uckley , 4 2 4 U .S . a t 6 4 ; Mc C o n n e ll , 54 0 U . S . at 20 1). T he R e e d C o u rt c o n tin u e d :

W e h av e a seri es o f p rece d e n ts co n si d eri n g F i rst A m e ndm e ntc ha l l e n g es t o di s c l os ur e r e qui r e m e nt s i n the el ec t oral co nt ext . T hese prec edent s have r evi ew ed such c h a lle n g e s u n d e r w h a t h a s b e e n te rm e d“e x a c tin g s c ru tin y .” T ha ts t a nda r d r e qui r e s as ubs t a nt i a l r e l a t i on be tw een the di s c l os ur e r e qui r e m e nta nd as uf f i c i e nt l yi m port a nt g o v e rn m e n ta l in te r e s t. R ee d , 130 S . C t . a t2818 ( c i t a t i ons a nd i nt e rna l quot a t i on m a rks om i tt e d) . A s the la te s t in atr ilo g yo f

r e c e n t S u p r e m e C o u rt c a s e s , R ee d c onf i rm e d tha te xa c t i ng s c ru tin yap p lie s in th e c a m p a ig n f in a n c e d is c lo s u r e c o n te x t. See C i t i ze ns U ni ted , 1 3 0 S . C t. a t 9 1 4 ; D a v is , 128 S . C t . a t2765–66. W e the r e f or e appl ye xa c t i ng s c rut i nyt o H um a n L i f

e ’ s f a c i a l c ha l l e nge s t o the D i s c l os ur e L a w a nd e xa m i ne30

w he the rthe l a w ’ s r e qui r e m e nt s a r e s ubs t a nt i a l l yr e l a t e d t o as uf f i c i e nt l yi m port a nt g o v e rn m e n ta l in te r e s t. 2. G ov er n m en talIn te re st P r ovi di ng i nf

orm a t i on t o the e l e c t or a t e i s vi t a l t o the e f f i c i e ntf unc t i oni ng of the m arketpl ac e of i deas , and thu s t o adv anci ng the dem ocra t i c obj ec t i ves unde r l y i ng the F i r s tA m e ndm e nt . A s the S upr e m e C ourte xpl a i ne d i n B uckley , “ In ar e publ i c w he r e the pe opl e a r e s ove r e i gn, the abi l i tyof the c i t i z e nryt o m a ke i nform ed choi ce s am on g candi dat es for off i ce i s e ss ent i al . ” B uckley , 42 4 U . S . at 1 4

– 1 5 ; s e e a ls o Mc C o n n e ll , 540 U . S . a t197 ( r e c ogni z i ng the “ F i r s tA m e ndm e nt i nt er es t s of i nd i vi du al ci t i ze ns se eki ng t o m ake i nform ed choi ce s i n the po l i t i ca l m a rke tpl a c e ” ( quot i ng Mc Co n n e l l v . FE C , 2 5 1 F. Su p p . 2 d1 7 6 , 2 3 7 ( D . D . C. 2 0 0 3 ) ) ) . T h u s , b yr e v e a lin g in f o rm a tio n ab o u t th e c o n tr ib u to r s to a n dp a rtic ip a n ts i n publ i c di s c our s e a nd de ba t e , di s c l os ur e l a w s he l p e ns ur e tha tvot e r s ha ve the f a c t s the yne e d t o e va l ua t e the va r i ous m e s s a ge s c om pe t i ng f orthe i ra tt e nt i on. T h i s v i t al p ro v i si o n o f i n fo rm at i o n rep eat ed l y h as b een reco g n i zed as a su ffi ci en t l y i m p o rt an t , i f n o tco m p el l i n g , g o v ern m en t al i n t erest . A s th e C o u rtfi rst a rt i c ul a t e d i n B uckley ,

[ D ]is c lo s u r e p r o v id e s th e e le c to r a te w ith in f o rm a tio n “a s to w h e r e p o litic a l c a m p a ig n m o n e yc o m e s f r o m a n dh o w it is s p e n t b yth e c a n d id a te ” in o r d e r t o a i d th e v o te r s in31 eval uat i ng tho se w h o se ek fe dera l offi ce . Ital l ow s vot er s t o p l ac e e ac h candi dat e i n the po l i t i ca l sp ec trum m ore p r e c is e lyth a n is o f

te n p o s s ib le s o le ly o n th e b a s is o f p a rty l abel s an d ca m pai gn spee ches . T he sources of a c a ndi d a t e ’ s f

i n a n c i a l s u p p o rta l s o a l e rtth e v o t e rt o the i nt e r e s t s t o w hi c h ac a ndi da t e i s m o stl i ke l yt o be re spon si ve and thu s fac i l i t at e pre di ct i on s of f uture p e r f o rm a n c e in o f

f ic e . B uckley , 4 2 4 U .S . a t 6 6

– 6 7 . B uckleyre cogn i ze d thi s i nform at i on al i nt er es tas subst ant i al , and i n i t s c am pai gn fi nance j uri sprudence, the S up re m e C ou rt consi st ent l y has ac kn ow l edged the i m po rt antrol e pl ay ed by di sc l osure r e q u ir e m e n ts in p o litic a l d is c o u r s e . See C i t i ze ns U ni ted , 130 S . C t . a t915–16 (r ec og ni zi ng the go vernm ent ’ s i nform at i on al i nt er es tas subst ant i al and st at i ng that the “ F i r s tA m e ndm e ntpr ot e c t s pol i t i c a l s pe e c h; a nd di s c l os ur e pe rm i t s c i t i z e ns a nd shar ehol ders t o rea ctt o the spee ch of corporat e e nt i t i es i n a prop erw ay ”) ; Mc C o n n e ll , 5 4 0 U .S . a t 1 9 7 ( u p h o ld in g B C R A ’s d is c lo s u r e r e q u ir e m e n ts , w h ile s tr ik in g d o w n its s e g r e g a te d f u n dr e q u ir e m e n t) ; M CF L , 479 U . S . a t262 ( r e l y i ng on the e xi s t e nc e of

di s c l os ur e r e qui r e m e nt s i n r e j e c t i ng the gove rnm e nt ’ s a r gum e nt th a tf a i l u r e t o ap p l yth e mo r e o n e r o u s s e g r e g a t e df u n dr e q u i r e me n tt o M CFL w oul d r e s ul ti n da nge r ous a m ount s of s pe ndi ng bynonpr of

i t s on be ha l f

of c o rp o r a t i o n s a n d u n i o n s ) . S i m i l a r l y , we h a v e f r e q u e n t l yr e i t e r a t e dwh a twe r e c ogni z e d i n C

PL C–I : tha ti n the “ c a c ophonyof pol i t i c a l c om m uni c a t i ons thr ough32

w hi c h C a l i f

orni avot e r s m us tpi c k outm e a ni ngf ul a nd a c c ur a t e m e s s a ge s . . . be i ng abl e t o eval uat e w ho i s doi ng the t al ki ng i s of gre ati m po rt ance . ” C PL C–I, 328 F .3 d a t 1 1 0 5 ; see a l

so Ca n yo n Ferry , 5 5 6 F .3 da t 1 0 3 2 ( “[ W ]e h a v e little tr o u b le c onc l udi ng tha tM ont a na ’ s i nf orm a t i ona l i nt e r e s ti s ge ne r a l l y‘ i m port a nt ’ i n the cont extof M on t ana’ s s t at ew i de bal l oti ss ues. ”) ; C PL C–II, 5 0 7 F .3 da t 1 1 7 9 n .8 ( “[ I ]n th e c o n te x t o f

d is c lo s u r e r e q u ir e m e n ts , th e g o v e rn m e n t’s in te r e s t in p r o v id in g th e e le c to r a te w ith in f o rm a tio n r e la te dto e le c tio n a n db a llo t is s u e s is w e ll- e s tab lis h e d .” ) ; ARTLC , 44 1 F . 3d at79 3 (re cogn i zi ng that“ [i ] nd i vi du al c itiz e n s s e e k in g to m a k e in f o rm e dc h o ic e s in th e p o litic a l m a rk e tp la c e . . . n e e d to know w ha te nt i tyi s f

undi ng ac om m uni c a t i on” ( c i t a t i on a nd i nt e rna l quot a t i on m arks om i tt ed)) . W e ha ve obs e rve d tha tthe s e c ons i de r a t i ons “ appl yj us ta s f or c e f ul l y , i f not m ore s o, for vot er -dec i ded b al l otm ea sure s. ” C PL C–I, 328 F . 3d a t1105. I n the b a l l o ti n i t i a t i v e c o n t e x t , w h e r e v o t e r s a r e r e s p o n s i b l e f o rt a k i n g p o s i t i o n s o n s o me o f th e d a y ’s m o s t c o n te n tio u s a n d te c h n ic a l is s u e s , “[ v ]o te r s a c t a s le g is la to r s ,” w hi l e “ i nt er es tgrou ps and i nd i vi du al s a dv ocat i ng a m ea sure ’ s def ea tor pass age a ct as l ob byi st s. ” I

d. at11 06 . A s are sul tof thi s proce ss , “ aver age c i t i ze ns ar e subj ec t ed t o adv ert i si ng bl i t ze s of di st ort i on and h al f- truths and are l ef tt o fi gu re o u t f o rth e m s e lv e s w h ic h in te r e s t g r o u p s p o s e th e g r e a te s t th r e a ts to th e ir33

se l f- i nt er es t . ” I

d. a t1105–06 ( quot i ng D a vi d S . B r ode r , D e m oc r a c yD e r a i l e d: I ni t i a t i ve C a m pa i gns a nd the P ow e rof M one y18 ( 2000) ) . T hus , the hi gh s t a ke s of th e b a llo t c o n te x t o n lya m p lif yth e c ru c ia l n e e dto in f o rm th e e le c to r a te th a t is w e ll reco g n i zed i n th e co n t ex to f can d i d at e el ect i o n s. N ot abl y, i n the l ob byi ng cont ext , the S up re m e C ou rthas uph el d d i sc l osure r e qui r e m e nt s e nabl i ng l a w m a ke r s “ t o know w ho i s be i ng hi r e d, w ho i s putt i ng up th e m o n e y , a n d h o w m u c h .” U n i ted S ta tes v. H

a rriss , 3 4 7 U .S . 6 1 2 , 6 2 5 ( 1 9 5 6 ) . T he C ou rtfoun d these re qu i re m ent s nec es sarybecause “ l egi sl at i ve com pl exi t i es a r e s uc h tha ti ndi vi dua l m e m be r s of C ongr e s s c a nnotbe e xpe c t e d t o e xpl or e the m y r i a d pr e s s ur e s t o w hi c h the ya r e r e gul a r l ys ubj e c t e d. Y e tf ul l r e a l i z a t i on of

the A m e r ic a n id e a l o f

g o v e rn m e n t b ye le c te dr e p r e s e n ta tiv e s d e p e n d s to n o s m a ll ext enton thei r abi l i ty t o p roperl y e val uat e s uch p re ss ures . ” Id . I n as im ila rm a n n e r , c itiz e n s , a c tin g “a s la w m a k e r s , h a v e a n in te r e s t in kn ow i ng w ho i s l ob byi ng for thei r vot e, j ustas m em bers of C on gres s m ayre qu i re lo b b y is ts to d is c lo s e w h o is p a y in g f o rth e lo b b y is ts ’ s e rv ic e s a n dh o w m u c h .” C PL C–I, 3 2 8 F .3 d a t 1 1 0 6 ; see a l so C i t i z e ns A gai ns t

R e nt C ontr ol v . C i t yof B erke ley , 454 U . S . 290, 298 ( 1981) ( r e c ogni z i ng i n the ba l l oti ni t i a t i ve c ont e xtthe i nt e r e s tof

vot e r s i n know i ng “ the i de nt i tyof thos e w hos e m one ys upport s or o p p o s e s ag iv e n b a llo t m e a s u r e ” ) . I n d e e d , th e p r o v is io n o f th is in f o rm a tio n is34

part i cul ar l y c ri t i ca l i n the bal l otm ea sure cont ext , “ es peci al l y w hen o ne consi ders thatbal l ot -m ea sure l angu age i s typi ca l l y c on fusi ng , and the l on g-t erm po l i cy ram i fi ca t i on s of the bal l otm ea sure ar e oft en un kn ow n. ” C PL C–I, 32 8 F . 3d at 1106. I f nothi ng e l s e , “ know i ng w ho ba c ks oroppos e s agi ve n i ni t i a t i ve ” w i l l gi ve vo t er s “ a pre tty goo d i dea of w ho st ands t o b enef i tfr om the l egi sl at i on . ” I d. A cc es s t o rel i abl e i nform at i on becom es even m ore i m po rt antas m ore s p e a k e r s , m o r e s p e e c h –a n d th u s m o r e s p e n d in g –e n te rth e m a rk e tp la c e , w h ic h is prec i se l y w hathas occ urre d i n rec entye ar s. L i ke ca m pai gn s f or el ec t ed offi ce , bal l oti ni t i at i ves are the subj ec tof i nt ense debat e and , ac cordi ng l y, grea t er e xpe ndi tur e s t o e ns ur e tha tm e s s a ge s r e a c h vot e r s . A s w e not e d i n C PL C–I,

“ i ni t i at i ve ca m pai gn s have becom e am on eygam e. ” I d. at11 05 (quo t i ng B roder at 1 8 ) . B yo n e a c c o u n t, s p e n d in g o n p o litic a l c a m p a ig n s r e a c h e d$ 5 .3 b illio n in 2 0 0 8 , a2 7 % in c r e a s e o v e r2 0 0 4 s p e n d in g . See J e a n n e C u m m in g s , 2008 Cam pai gn C o st l i est i n U . S. Histo ry , P o litic o , N o v . 5 , 2 0 0 8 . T h e C o m m is s io n ’s o w n d a ta r e ve a l tha ti nde pe nde nte xpe ndi tur e s i n W a s hi ngt on e l e c t i ons a nd ba l l oti ni t i a t i ve c ont e s t s i nc r e a s e d f

r om $269, 275 i n 1994 t o ne a r l y$8 m i l l i on i n 2004. A c c or di ng to th e C o m m is s io n , c o m m itte e s r e p o rte dr e c e iv in g m o r e th a n $ 1 2 .5 m illio n in c ontr i but i ons a nd m a ki ng m or e tha n $12 m i l l i on i n e xpe ndi tur e s f orba l l ot i ni t i a t i ve s i n 2006, a nd e xpe ndi tur e s f ora nd a ga i ns tas i ngl e ba l l otm e a s ur e ha ve35

r e a c he d m or e tha n $15. 5 m i l l i on. A s one j ourna l i s tha s obs e rve d, “ M one ydoe s not a l w a y s pr e va i l i n i ni t i a t i ve f i ght s , buti ti s a l m os ta l w a y s am a j or– e ve n dom i na nt

–f a c to r .” B r o d e ra t 7 ; s e e al s o D a ni e l S m i th, C a m pa i gn F i na nc i ng of B a l l ot In it iati v es in th e A m er ican S tates 7 1 (2 0 0 1 ) ( “[C ]am p aig n fin an cin g . . . p lay[ s] a c e n tr a l r o le in b a llo t m e a s u r e s .” ) . T h e d istrict co u rt n o ted th e p ar ti cu lar im p o rtan ce o f th e g o v ern m en t’ s i nf orm a t i ona l i nt e r e s ti n thi s c a s e gi ve n the na tur e of ba l l oti ni t i a t i ve c a m pa i gns ac ross the coun try : “ T he st at e’ s i nt er es ti n i nform i ng the el ec t orat e abo ut‘ w here pol i t i c a l c a m pa i gn m one yc om e s f r om a nd how i ti s s pe nt ’ i s onl ya m pl i f i e d i n the bal l oti ni t i at i ve cont extas m ore and m ore m on eyi s pou re d i nt o b al l otm ea sure s nat i on w i de. ” H

u m a n L ife o

f W a s h ., I n c . v . B r u m s ic kle , N o. C 08- 0590- J C C , 2009 W L 62 14 4, at*1 3 (W . D . W as h. Jan. 8, 20 09 ) ( ci t at i on om i tt ed). T he di stri ctcourt c o n c lu d e d th a t th e “s ta te th e r e f o r e r e ta in s a n e x tr e m e lyc o m p e llin g in te r e s t in ‘fo ll o w in g th e m o n ey ’ i n th e b allo t i n it iati v e c o n tex t so th at th e e lecto ra te’s deci si on m aybe an i nform ed on e. ” I d. A s tre nd s i n cam pai gn fi nance j ur i s prude nc e ha ve ope ne d the doort o e ve n m or e pol i t i c a l e xpe ndi tur e s i n theA l a rm i ngl y , a s l e ve l s i n pol i t i c a l s pe ndi ng r i s e dr a m a t i c a l l y , the 2 perc ent age of i nd ependentent i t i es di sc l osi ng i nform at i on abou tw here thatpo l i t i ca l s p e n d in g c o m e s f

r o m h a s s h a rp lyd e c lin e d . See E d ito r ia l, T he Se c r e t E le c t i on , N . Y . T i m e s , S e pt . 18, 2010 ( r e port i ng tha tthe r a t e of di s c l os ur e byi nde pe nde nt gr oups r e c e i vi ng e l e c t i one e r i ng dona t i ons dr oppe d f r om a l m os t100% i n 2004 a nd 20 06 , t o l es s than 5 0% i n 2 00 8, t o o nl y 32% i n 2 01 0). 36 future, the m agni tud e of the st at e’ s i nt er es ti s onl y l i kel y t o i ncre as e. Se e, e . g. , 2 C i t i ze ns U ni ted , 130 S . C t . a t911 ( hol di ng unc ons t i tut i ona l apr ohi bi t i on on c orpor a t e i nde pe nde nte xpe ndi tur e s a nd s t a t i ng tha t“ i ti s ourl a w a nd ourtr a di t i on thatm ore s peec h, no tl es s, i s the go verni ng rul e” un der the F i rs tA m endm ent ); L on g B each A re a Cha m ber of C om m er ce , 603 F . 3d a t695–99 ( f ol l ow i ng C i t i

z e ns U ni ted t o de e m l i m i t a t i ons on c ontr i but i ons t o a nd e xpe ndi tur e s byi nde pe nde nt expend i ture c om m i tt ee s vi ol at i ve of the F i rs tA m endm ent ). C a m pa i gn f

i na nc e di s c l os ur e r e qui r e m e nt s thus a dva nc e the i m port a nta nd w e l l - r e c ogni z e d gove rnm e nt a l i nt e r e s tof pr ovi di ng the vot i ng publ i c w i th the in f o rm a tio n w ith w h ic h to a s s e s s th e v a r io u s m e s s a g e s v y in g f o rth e ira tte n tio n in the m a rke tpl a c e of

i de a s . A n appe a l t o c a s tone ’ s vot e apa rt i c ul a rw a ym i ght pr ove pe r s ua s i ve w he n m a de orf i na nc e d byone s our c e , butthe s a m e a r gum e nt m i gh tfa l l on deaf

ears w hen m ade or f

i nanced by another. T he i ncre as ed

“ tr a ns pa r e nc y ” e nge nde r e d bydi s c l os ur e l a w s “ e nabl e s the e l e c t or a t e t o m a ke i nform ed deci si on s and gi ve prop erw ei gh tt o d i ff er entspeakers and m es sa ges. ”37

C i t i ze ns U ni ted , 1 3 0 S . C t. a t 9 1 6 . A s th e S u p r e m e C o u rt h a s s ta te d : “[ T ]h e p e o p le i n ourde m oc r a c ya r e e ntrus t e d w i th the r e s pons i bi l i tyf orj udgi ng a nd e va l ua t i ng th e r e la tiv e m e r its o f

c o n f lic tin g a r g u m e n ts . T h e ym a yc o n s id e r , in m a k in g th e ir j ud gm ent , the source and credi bi l i ty of the advo ca t e. ” B e llo tti , 4 3 5 U .S . a t 7 9 1

– 9 2 . D i s c l os ur e r e qui r e m e nt s , l i ke thos e i n W a s hi ngt on’ s D i s c l os ur e L a w , a l l ow the p e o p le in o u rd e m o c r a c yto d o ju s t th a t. 3 . T a ilo r in g A n a ly s is T o s urvi ve e xa c t i ng s c rut i ny , the D i s c l os ur e L a w ’ s c ha l l e nge d pr ovi s i ons m us tbe a ras ubs t a nt i a l r e l a t i ons hi p t o W a s hi ngt on S t a t e ’ s s uf f i c i e nt l yi m port a nt i nt er es ti n p rovi di ng the el ec t orat e w i th sou rc e and fi nanci al i nform at i on t o i nform th e ird e c is io n m ak in g a t th e b a llo t b o x . See R ee d , 13 0 S . C t . at28 18 . H um an L i fe c o n te n d s th a t th r e e a s p e c ts o f th e D is c lo s u r e L a w a r e in s u f f ic ie n tlyr e la te dto W a s hi ngt on’ s i nt e r e s ti n e ns ur i ng a n i nf orm e d e l e c t or a t e : ( a ) the de f i ni t i on of

“ po l i t i ca l com m i tt ee ”; (b) the di sc l osure r equi re m ent s i m po se d o n p ol i t i ca l com m i tt ee s; and (c) the defi ni t i on s of “ i nd ependentexpend i ture” and “ po l i t i ca l advert i si ng . ”38 a. D ef i n i ti on of “P ol i ti calC om m i tt ee ” A n or ga ni z a t i on qua l i f

i e s a s a“ pol i t i c a l c om m i tt e e ” i f i t s “ pr i m a ryorone of the pr i m a rypurpos e s ” i s “ t o a f f e c t , di r e c t l yori ndi r e c t l y , gove rnm e nt a l de c i s i on m aki ng by supp ort i ng or op po si ng cand i dat es or bal l otprop osi t i on s. ” E ve rgre en Fr e e dom Found . , 49 P . 3d a t903 ( quot i ng E v ans , 54 6 P . 2d at79 ). H um an L i fe c o n te n d s th a t th is d e f

in itio n s w e e p s to o b r o a d ly , a n dth u s is n o t s u b s ta n tia lly r e la te d to th e g o v e rn m e n t’s in f o rm a tio n a l in te r e s t, b e c au s e it c o v e r s g r o u p s w ith “a ” p r im a ryp u rp o s e o f

p o litic a l a d v o c a c y , in s te a do f b e in g lim ite dto g r o u p s w ith

“ th e” p ri m ary p u rp o se o f p o l i t i cal ad v o cacy. H u m an L i fe arg u es th atth e F i rst A m en d m en tcat eg o ri cal l y p ro h i b i t s th e g o v ern m en tfro m d esi g n at i n g a g ro u p as a

“ po l i t i ca l com m i tt ee ” unl es s the grou p’ s s ol e, pri m ary purpo se i s pol i t i ca l ad v o ca cy , an d itar g u es th at th is re su ltis co m p elled b y th e S u p re m e C o u rt’s de c i s i on i n B uckley . T hu s, H um an L i fe cont ends thatthe breadth o f the D i sc l osure L a w ’s d e f

in itio n o f “p o litic a l c o m m itte e ” r e n d e r s it p e rs e f a c ia llyu n c o n s titu tio n a l. W e d is a g r e e w ith H u m a n L if e ’s p r e m is e r e g ar d in g th e s c o p e o f c o n s titu tio n a lly pe rm i s s i bl e pol i t i c a l c om m i tt e e r e gul a t i on a nd w i th i t s c onc l us i on tha tthe D i s c l os ur e L a w ’ s de f

i ni t i on of “ pol i t i c a l c om m i tt e e ” i s t oo br oa d t o be s u b s ta n tia llyr e la te d to th e g o v e rn m e n t’s im p o rta n t in f o rm a tio n a l in te r e s t.F eder al E l ec t i on C am pai gn A ctof 19 71 (F E C A ), 86 S t at . 3 (19 72 ), 3 am ended b

y B ip a rtis a n C a m p a ig n R e f o rm A c t o f

2 0 0 2 ( B C R A ) , 1 1 6 S ta t. 8 1 , 2 U . S . C . § 431 e ts e q. 39 T o s u p p o rt its p r o p o s e d b r ig h t- lin e p r o h ib itio n o n r e g u la tin g g r o u p s w ith onl y“ a ” pr i m a rypurpos e of pol i t i c a l a dvoc a c y , H um a n L i f e r e l i e s on B uckley . T here , the S up re m e C ou rtnarr ow l y c on strued the defi ni t i on of “ po l i t i ca l co m m ittee” u n d erfe d er al ca m p aig n fin an ce law . T h e C o u rt n o ted th at F E C A ’s 3 de f i ni t i on of “ pol i t i c a l c om m i tt e e ” r e f e rr e d onl yt o am one t a rythr e s hol d, a nd thus coul d b e c on strued as re ac hi ng l ar ge am ou nt s of pure i ss ue advo ca cy– i n w hi ch c a s e th e b u r d e n s im p o s e d o n s p e e c h w o u ldo u ts tr ip th e g o v e rn m e n ta l in te r e s ts furthere d b y the A ct . T o avo i d thi s uncon st i tut i on al re sul t , the B uckley C ou rt adop t ed the l ow ercourt ’ s narrow i ng construct i on of the defi ni t i on of “ po l i t i ca l c o m m itte e s ” :

T o fu l fi l l th e p u rp o ses o f th e A ctth ey n eed o n l y en co m p ass or ga ni z a t i ons tha ta r e unde rthe c ontr ol of ac a ndi da t e or the m a j orpurpos e of

w hi c h i s the nom i na t i on ore l e c t i on of a c andi dat e. E xp endi tures of cand i dat es and o f “ po l i ti cal c om m i tt e e s ” s o c ons true d c a n be a s s um e d t o f a l l w i thi n the c or e a r e a s ought t o be a ddr e s s e d byC ongr e s s . T he ya r e , by de f i ni t i on, c a m pa i gn r e l a t e d. B uckley , 42 4 U . S . at79 . T hu s, by l i m i t i ng the defi ni t i on of w hi ch ent i t i es w er e subj ec tt o F E C A ’ s r equi re m ent s, the C ou rtensure d thattho se re qu i re m ent s w er e s u b s ta n tia llyr e la te d to th e p u rp o s e s o f th e A c t.40

S e iz in g u p o n th e p h r a s e “th e m a jo rp u rp o s e ,” H u m a n L if e in s is ts th a t a st atut e i s uncon st i tut i on al un der B uckleyi f i ti m pos e s di s c l os ur e r e qui r e m e nt s on grou ps w i th m ul t i pl e “ m aj or pu rposes , ” e ven i f one of the grou p’ s m aj or pu rposes h ap p e n s to b e p o litic a l a d v o c a c y . P u t d if f e r e n tly , H u m an L if

e a r g u e s th a t B uckley e s tab lis h e s ab r ig h t- lin e ru le th a t, u n le s s th e s o le m a jo rp u rp o s e o f

ag r o u p is pol i t i c a l a dvoc a c y , a nyr e gul a t i on of tha tgr oup w i l l aut om a t i c a l l ybe t oo b u r d e n s o m e to b e ju s tif ie d b yth e s ta te ’s in f

o rm a tio n a l in te r e s t. T h e F o u rth C ir c u it ha s a dopt e d H um a ns L i f e ’ s vi e w , r e a di ng B uckleya s as t a t e me n to f “ th e Su p r e me C ourt ’ s i ns i s t e nc e tha tpol i t i c a l c om m i tt e e s c a n onl ybe r e gul a t e d i f the yha ve the supp ortor op po si t i on of cand i dat es as thei r pri m ary purpo se . ” N . C . R i gh t to L i f e, Inc. v. L eake , 52 5 F . 3d 27 4, 28 9 (4th C i r. 20 08 ). W e di sa gree w i th H um an L i fe ’ s r ea di ng of B uckley , a n dw e r e je c t its i nv i t at i on t o ado pta bri gh t -l i ne rul e prohi bi t i ng al l re gu l at i on of grou ps w i th “ a” pri m ary purpo se of po l i t i ca l advo ca cy . T he B uckley C o u rt’s s ta te m e n t th a t a narr ow defi ni t i on of po l i t i ca l com m i tt ee “ can b e a ss um ed t o fal l w i thi n the core a r e as o u g h t to b e a d d r e s s e d b yC o n g r e s s ” is m o s t r e a s o n ab lyr e a dto m e a n e x a c tly w ha ti ts a y s – tha ti tw a s c l e a ra nd unc ontr ove r s i a l tha tthe bur de ns i m pos e d bythe d is c lo s u r e r e q u ir e m e n ts in th a t c a s e w e r e “b yd e f in itio n ” s u b s ta n tia llyr e la te dto the gove rnm e nt ’ s i nt e r e s t s w he n appl i e d t o or ga ni z a t i ons w hos e s i ngl e m a j or41

purpos e w a s pol i t i c a l a dvoc a c y . N othi ng i n B uckleysugg es t s, ho w ever , that d is c lo s u r e r e q u ir e m e n ts a r e c o n s titu tio n a l o n lyw h e n s o ap p lie d . C o n tr a ryto H u m a n L if

e ’s in te rp r e ta tio n , B uckley ’ s s t a t e m e nt– tha tde f i ni ng gr oups w i th “ the m ajo r p u rp o se ” o f p o li ti ca l ad v o ca cy as p o li ti ca l co m m ittees is su ff icien t “ [t]o ful fi l l the pu rposes of the A ct , ” B uckley42 4 U . S . at79 – d oes noti nd i ca t e thatan ent i ty m usthave thatm aj or pu rpose t o b e dee m ed const i tut i on al l y apo l i t i ca l c o m m itte e . Se e, e . g. , C PL C–II, 50 7 F . 3d at11 80 n. 11 (“ [T ] hi s C ou rthas hel d that i rr es pect i ve of the m aj or pu rpose of an o rgani za t i on , di sc l osure r equi re m ent s m ay b e im p o s e d .” ) ; Ca n

yo n Ferry , 556 F . 3d a t1026 ( di s c us s i ng M ont a nar e gul a t i ons of “in c id e n ta l p o litic a l c o m m itte e s ,” w h ic h a r e s u b je c t to d is c lo s u r e r e q u ir e m e n ts if th e ym a k e c o n tr ib u tio n s o re x p e n d itu r e s , r e g a r d le s s o f th e irp r im a ryp u rp o s e ) . R ather, i n st at i ng thatdi sc l osure r equi re m ent s “ (1) c anno tcover ‘ grou ps engaged p u r e lyin is s u e d is c u s s io n ’ a n d ( 2 ) c a n c o v e r‘g r o u p s th e m a jo rp u rp o s e o f

w h ic h is the no m i nat i on or el ec t i on of a c andi dat e, ’ ” the B uckley C ou rt“ defi ned the ou t er l i m i t s of perm i ss i bl e pol i t i ca l com m i tt ee re gu l at i on . ” L eake , 525 F . 3d a t327 ( M i c ha e l , J . , di s s e nt i ng) . W ha ti s pe rm i s s i bl e w i thi n the s e out e rl i m i t s de pe nds on w h e th e rth e b u r d e n s im p o s e d b yth e d is c lo s u r e r e q u ir e m e n ts a r e s u b s ta n tia lly r e la te d to th e g o v e rn m e n t’s im p o rta n t in f o rm a tio n a l in te r e s t.42

H um an L i fe ar gu es thatou r r ea di ng of B uckleyi s i nc ons i s t e ntw i th the S upr e m e C ourt ’ s de c i s i on i n M CF L , w hi c h i tc l a i m s “ r e a f f i rm e d B uckley ’s m aj or-purpo se t es t . ” M CF L d idn o s u c h th in g . M CFL c ons i de r e d w he the rthe bu rden of a corporat e c am pai gn expend i ture l i m i t at i on w as un const i tut i on al as appl i e d t o a n i de ol ogi c a l nonpr of i t ; i tdi d notc ons i de raf a c i a l c ha l l e nge t o a d is c lo s u r e r e q u ir e m e n t im p o s e d o n e n titie s e n g a g in g in p o litic a l a d v o c a c y . See M CF L , 479 U . S . a t241. N otonl ydi d M CF L i nv ol ve a hi gh erst andard of revi ew tha n i s appr opr i a t e he r e , buti ta l s o de a l tw i th s i gni f i c a nt l ym or e s e ve r e bur de ns on F i rs tA m endm entri gh t s. A s the S up re m e C ou rthas m ade c l ear, fi nanci al l i m i t at i on s are subj ec tt o a di ff er entconst i tut i on al anal ys i s than are di sc l osure r e q u ir e m e n ts . Se e, e . g. , R ee d , 1 3 0 S . C t. a t 2 8 1 3 ; C i t i ze ns U ni ted , 13 0 S . C t . at 91 4. L i m i t at i on s on exp endi tures ent ai l the appl i ca t i on of stri ctsc rut i ny ra ther th an ex act i n g scru t i n y, an d th ey are u n i fo rm l y reco g n i zed as i m p l i cat i n g th e m o st c e ntr a l F i r s tA m e ndm e nti nt e r e s t s . A s the C ourti n M CF L s t a t e d, i nde pe nde nt e xpe ndi tur e s l i e a t“ the c or e of oure l e c t or a l pr oc e s s a nd of F i r s tA m e ndm e nt fr ee do m s, ” M CF

L , 479 U . S . a t251 ( quot i ng B u c ke ly , 4 2 4 U .S . a t 3 9 ) ) , a n dth e ir l i m i t at i o n m u stb e j u st i fi ed b y a co m p el l i n g st at e i n t erest . T h e C o u rtal so r e c ogni z e d the s i gni f

i c a ntbur de n i m pos e d bys uc h l i m i t a t i ons , w hi c h ha ve the ef fe ctof “ di re ct l y l i m i t i ng ” s om e e nt i t i es ’ abi l i ty t o “ engage i n core pol i t i ca l43

spee ch, ” i d. at25 5, w here as di sc l osure r equi re m ent s are “ l es s r es tri ct i ve, ” i d. at 262. F urthe rm or e , i n M CF L , po l i t i ca l advo ca cyw as no t“ a” m aj or pu rpose – m uch le s s “th e ” m a

jo rp u rp o s e –o f

M C F L , w h ic h th e C o u rt n o te do n ly“o c c a s io n a lly engages i n act i vi t i es on behal f of pol i t i ca l cand i dat es , ” and w ho se “ ce ntra l organi za t i on al pu rpose i s i ss ue advo ca cy . ” I d. a t 2 5 3 n .6 . T h u s , th e p r o p o s e d b r ig h t- lin e p r o h ib itio n th a t H u m a n L if e a r g u e s is est ab l i sh ed b y B uckleyw a s nota ti s s ue i n M CF L a n dis n o t s u p p o rte db yits r e a s o n i n g . Th e Co u rts t a t e d th a t , “ s h o u l dM CFL’ s i n d e p e n d e n ts p e n d i n g b e c o me s o e xt e ns i ve tha tthe or ga ni z a t i on’ s m a j orpurpos e m a ybe r e ga r de d a s c a m pa i gn a c tiv ity ,” it w o u ldb e c la s s if ie d a s ap o litic a l c o m m itte e u n d e rth e e x is tin g s ta tu te . M CF L , 479 U . S . a t262. B utthi s s t a t e m e nttha tM C F L ’ s i nc r e a s e d c a m pa i gn spendi ng coul d render i ta pol i t i ca l com m i tt ee un der the st atut e i n n o w ay fore cl oses the go vernm ent ’ s abi l i ty t o aff i rm at i vel y des i gn at e a s “ po l i t i ca l c o m m itte e s ” g r o u p s w ith “a ” m a jo rp u rp o s e o f

p o litic a l a d v o c a c y . H a v in g r e

je c te d th e n o tio n th a t th e F ir s t A m e n d m e n t c a te g o r ic a llyp r o h ib its the go vernm entfr om i m po si ng di sc l osure r equi re m ent s on g roup s w i th m ore than o n e “ m aj o r p u rp o se, ” w e tu rn t o th e cru x o f th e ap p l i cab l e co n st i tu t i o n al an al ysi s – w h eth erth er e is a su b stan ti al re lati o n sh ip b etw ee n W as h in g to n S tate’s i nf orm a t i ona l i nt e r e s ta nd i t s de c i s i on t o i m pos e di s c l os ur e r e qui r e m e nt s on44

organi za t i on s w i th a pri m ary purpo se of po l i t i ca l advo ca cy . W e c on cl ud e that th e r e is . T he D i s c l os ur e L a w doe s note xt e nd t o a l l gr oups w i th “ apurpos e ” of pol i t i c a l a dvoc a c y , buti ns t e a d i s t a i l or e d t o r e a c h onl ythos e gr oups w i th a “p r im a ry ” p u rp o s e o f

p o litic a l a c tiv ity . T h is lim ita tio n e n s u r e s th a t th e e le c to r a te ha s i nf orm a t i on aboutgr oups tha tm a ke pol i t i c a l a dvoc a c yapr i or i ty , w i thout s w e e p in g in to its p u rv ie w g r o u p s th a t o n lyin c id e n ta llye n g a g e in s u c h a d v o c a c y . U n d e rth is s ta tu to rys c h e m e , th e w o r d“p r im a ry ” –n o t th e w o r d s “a ” o r“th e ” –is w h a t is c o n s titu tio n a llys ig n if ic a n t. See L eake , 5 2 5 F .3 da t 3 2 8 ( M ic h a e l, J ., d is s e n tin g ) ( “T h e k e yw o r d p r o v id in g g u id a n c e to b o th s p e a k e r s a n dr e g u la to r s in

‘ the m a j orpurpos e ’ t e s tor‘ am a j orpurpos e ’ t e s ti s the w or d ‘ m a j or , ’ notthe a rt i c l e be f

or e i t . ” ) . W hi l e w e do nothol d tha tthe w or d “ pr i m a ry ” ori t s e qui va l e nt i s c on st i tut i on al l y nec es sary , w e do h ol d thati ti s s uffi ci enti n thi s c as e t o ensure thatthe D i sc l osure L aw i s app ropri at el y t ai l ored t o the go vernm ent ’ s i nform at i on al in te r e s t. F u rth e rm o r e , th e D is c lo s u r e L a w ’s d e f in itio n o f “p o litic a l c o m m itte e ” is

“ t a i l or e d t o a ddr e s s af

unda m e nt a l or ga ni z a t i ona l r e a l i ty ” tha tm os tor ga ni z a t i ons

“ do no thave j uston e m aj or pu rpose. ” I d. a t 3 3 0 . H u m a n L if

e c o n c e d e s , a s it m u st, th at th er e is a su b stan ti al re lati o n sh ip b etw ee n th e g o v ern m en t’ s45

i nf orm a t i ona l i nt e r e s ta nd the di s c l os ur e r e qui r e m e nt s i tm ayi m pos e on gr oups w ho se si ng l e pri m ary purpo se i s pol i t i ca l advo ca cy . W e f ai l t o see ho w that re l at i on shi p chang es so m at er i al l y a s t o render the re l at i on shi p i nsub st ant i al on ce th e g r o u p s e n g a g e in s e v e r a l p r im a ryp u rp o s e s in c lu d in g p o litic a l a d v o c a c y . I nde e d, i n s om e c i r c um s t a nc e s , the l a tt e rr e l a t i ons hi p m a ybe s tr onge rtha n the f orm e r . C ons i de r , f

ori ns t a nc e , tw o othe rw i s e i de nt i c a l gr oups : O ne s pe nds 40% of i t s t i m e and re source s on p ol i t i ca l advo ca cy , 30 % of i t s t i m e and re source s p r o d u c in g m e r c h a n d is e , a n d 3 0 % o f its tim e a n dr e s o u r c e s o v e r s e e in g a c a d e m ic re se ar ch. T he other group spends 45 % of i t s t i m e and re source s on p ol i t i ca l a d v o c a c y , 4 5 % o f

its tim e a n d r e s o u r c e s p r o d u c in g m e r c h a n d is e , a n d1 0 % o f its t i m e and re source s overs ee i ng ac adem i c r es earc h. P ol i t i ca l advo ca cyi s “ the” m a j orpurpos e f

orthe f orm e rgr oup ( be c aus e pol i t i c a l a dvoc a c yc om m a nds the l a r ge s ts ha r e of

the gr oup’ s t i m e a nd r e s our c e s ) , buti ti s j us t“ a ” m a j orpurpos e of the l att er(bec ause the grou p exp ends equal t i m e and re source s on p ol i t i ca l a dvoc a c ya nd m e r c ha ndi s e pr oduc t i on) . U nde rH um a n L i f e ’ s i nt e rpr e t a t i on of B uckley , the gove rnm e ntm a yc ons t i tut i ona l l yr e gul a t e the f orm e rgr oup a nd not the l a tt e r , e ve n though i n abs ol ut e t e rm s the l a tt e rgr oup s pe nds m or e t i m e a nd r e s our c e s tha n the f

orm e ron pol i t i c a l a dvoc a c y . T he m a nne ri n w hi c h the D i s c l os ur e L a w ’ s de f

i ni t i on of “ pol i t i c a l c om m i tt e e ” i nt e r a c t s w i th the nua nc e s of46

e n titie s ’ o r g a n iz a tio n a l s tru c tu r e r e in f o r c e s th e c o n c lu s io n th a t th e d e f in itio n is s u b s ta n tia llyr e la te d to th e g o v e rn m e n t’s in f o rm a tio n a l in te r e s t. I n a ddi t i on, the D i s c l os ur e L a w a ddr e s s e s the “ ha r d l e s s on of c ir c u m v e n tio n ” th a t h a s h is to r ic a llyp la g u e dth e c a m p a ig n f in a n c e c o n te x t. Mc C o n n e ll , 5 4 0 U .S . a t 1 6 5 ; see a l so C i t i ze ns U ni ted , 13 0 S . C t . at91 2 (“ P ol i t i ca l spee ch i s s o i ng ra i ned i n o ur cul ture thatspeakers fi nd w ay s t o ci rc um vent[these ] c a m p a ig n f

in a n c e la w s .” ) ; Mc C o n n e ll , 540 U . S . a t176 ( “ E xpe r i e nc e unde rthe c urr e ntl a w de m ons tr a t e s tha tC ongr e s s ’ c onc e rns aboutc i r c um ve nt i on a r e not m er el y hypothet i ca l . ”) . If the D i sc l osure L aw exem pt ed grou ps w i th o nl y “ a” pri m ary purpo se of po l i t i ca l advo ca cy , a group l i ke H um an L i fe ’ s a ff i l i at ed po l i t i ca l ac t i on com m i tt ee , H L P A C (w hi ch un m i st akabl y qual i fi es as a pol i t i ca l c om m i tt e e unde rthe D i s c l os ur e L a w ) , c oul d e va de pol i t i c a l c om m i tt e e s t a tus s im p lyb ym e r g in g w ith its a f f ilia te do r g a n iz a tio n , a n dth u s d ilu tin g th e n e w ly c r e a te d o r g a n iz a tio n ’s r e la tiv e s h a r e o f a d v o c a c ya c tiv ity . See L eake , 52 5 F . 3d at 33 2 (M i chae l , J. , di ss ent i ng ) ( w arni ng thatsuch a s t andard “ ef fe ct i vel y e ncou ra ges ad v o cacy g ro u p s t o ci rcu m v en tth e l aw b y n o t cr ea t i ng po l i t i ca l ac t i on com m i tt ee s a nd i ns t e a d t o hi de the i re l e c t or a l a dvoc a c yf r om vi e w bypul l i ng i ti nt o the f ol d of thei r l ar ger organi za t i on al structure” ). W as hi ng t on ’ s D i sc l osure L aw m i ni m i ze s th is r is ko f

c ir c u m v e n tio n b yta ilo r in g its d e f in itio n o f “p o litic a l c o m m itte e ” to47

c ove rgr oups w i th apr i m a rypurpos e of pol i t i c a l a dvoc a c y , w hi l e s t i l l e xe m pt i ng th o se th atare p ri m ari l y d ev o t ed t o i ssu e ad v o cacy. T h u s , th e D is c lo s u r e L a w ’s d e f in itio n o f “p o litic a l c o m m itte e ” is subst ant i al l y r el at ed t o the go vernm ent ’ s s uffi ci ent l y i m po rt anti nform at i on al i nt er es t . B y app l yi ng the di sc l osure r equi re m ent s a tt ac hed t o p ol i t i ca l com m i tt ee s t a tus t o or ga ni z a t i ons w i th apr i m a rypurpos e of pol i t i c a l a dvoc a c y , i t s c ove r a ge vi ndi c a t e s the gove rnm e nt ’ s i nt e r e s ti n a n i nf orm e d e l e c t or a t e w i thouti m pos i ng on nonpol i t i c a l or ga ni z a t i ons unne c e s s a r i l y . W e the r e f or e c onc l ude tha tthe de f i ni t i on o f “p o litic a l c o m m itte e ” d o e s n o t v io la te th e F ir s t A m e n d m e n t.

b . P ol i ti calC om m i tt ee D i sc l osu re R eq u i re m en ts H u m a n L if

e a r g u e s th a t, e v e n if

th e d e f in itio n o f “p o litic a l c o m m itte e ” is const i tut i on al l y perm i ss i bl e and grou ps w i th a pri m ary purpo se of po l i t i ca l a dvoc a c ym a ybe r e gul a t e d, the r e qui r e m e nt s the D i s c l os ur e L a w i m pos e s on grou ps sa t i sf

yi ng thatdefi ni t i on ar e uncon st i tut i on al l y onerous. H um an L i fe re l i es on ourde c i s i on i n C

PL C–II, i n w hi c h w e he l d tha tC a l i f orni a ’ s “ pol i t i c a l a c t i on c om m i tt e e –l i ke ” di s c l os ur e r e qui r e m e nt s w e r e unc ons t i tut i ona l a s appl i e d t o a

“ nonpr of i t , nons e c t a r i an, e duc a t i ona l or ga ni z a t i on de di c a t e d t o e duc a t i ng the pu bl i c on abo rt i on , i nfant i ci de, and euthanasi a. ” C PL C–II, 5 0 7 F .3 da t 1 1 7 4 , 1 1 8 7 . A pp l yi ng stri ctsc rut i ny, the C PL C–II pa ne l c i t e d M CF

L ’s h o ld in g th a t aW e not e thatbecause H um an L i fe al re ady has a pol i t i ca l ac t i on com m i tt ee , 4 H L P A C , the ef

fe ctof the D i sc l osure L aw on H um an L i fe di ff er s f rom the ef

fe ct the f e de r a l l a w ha d on the nonpr of i ti n M CF

L . T he r e , the c orpor a t i on w oul d ha ve been requi re d t o eng age i n m aj or bu re aucr at i c r es tructuri ng du e t o i nci dent al po l i t i ca l advo ca cy . H er e, the structural re qu i re m ent s i m po se d b y the D i sc l osure L a w a lr e a d ye x is t. 48 s e gr e ga t e d f

und f i na nc i a l r e qui r e m e ntw a s notna rr ow l yt a i l or e d t o the go vernm ent ’ s i nt er es ti n regul at i ng an i deol og i ca l no np rofi t , and i tconcl ud ed that 4 the di sc l osure r equi re m ent s a ti ss ue w er e notnarr ow l y t ai l ored. T he panel no t ed the C ourt ’ s c onc l us i on i n M CF L tha tthe s t a t e ’ s i nf

orm a t i ona l i nt e r e s tc oul d be a c hi e ve d “ i n am a nne rl e s s r e s tr i c t i ve tha n i m pos i ng the f ul l pa nopl yof

r e gul a t i ons thatac com pany st atus as a pol i t i ca l com m i tt ee . ” Id . a t1189 ( quot i ng M CF L , 479 U .S . a t 2 6 2 ) . A r g u in g th a t C PL C–II control s the ou t com e of thi s c as e, H um an L i fe char ac t er i ze s the i ss ue before us a s “ w hether W as hi ng t on m aydo w hatthi s C ou rt s a idC a lif

o rn iam a yn o t d o ” –n a m e ly , r e q u ir e p o litic a l c o m m itte e s to ap p o in t a tr e a s u r e r , o p e n ab a n ka c c o u n t in th e s ta te , a n df ile c e rta in r e p o rts . W e r e je c t H u m a n L if

e ’s c o n te n tio n th a t C

PL C–II gove rns the i s s ue of w hether W as hi ng t on S t at e’ s pol i t i ca l com m i tt ee di sc l osure r equi re m ent s are un const i tut i on al l y onerous because w e app l y adi ff er entst andard of revi ew than tha tappl i e d i n C

PL C–II. T ho ug h w e are bo un d t o fol l ow ci rc ui tprec edent , an exce pt i on t o thi s rul e e xi st s: “ [I ] n the fa ce of i nt erveni ng S up re m e C ou rtand en49

banc op i ni on s, ‘ a three -j ud ge panel of thi s c ou rtand d i stri ctcourt s s ho ul d con si der the m s e l ve s bound bythe i nt e rve ni ng hi ghe rauthor i tya nd r e j e c tthe pr i oropi ni on of thi s c ou rtas havi ng been eff ec t i vel y overrul ed. ’ ” U n i ted S ta tes v. B ro u ssa rd , 611 F . 3d 1069, 1072 ( 9th C i r . 2010) ( quot i ng Mille rv . G a m m ie , 335 F . 3d 889, 900 (9th C i r. 20 03 ) ( en banc)). S i nce C PL C–II w as deci ded, the S up re m e C ou rthas m a de c l e a rtha te xa c t i ng s c rut i ny , nots tr i c ts c rut i ny , i s appl i c abl e t o c a m pa i gn f in a n c e d is c lo s u r e r e q u ir e m e n ts . See R ee d , 130 S . C t . a t1288; C i t i ze ns U ni ted , 13 0 S . C t . at91 4. In l i gh tof thi s i nt erveni ng S up re m e C ou rtautho ri ty, i ti s c l ear th a t C PL C–II se tthe bar t oo hi gh i n app l yi ng stri ctsc rut i ny. T he go vernm entneed not , a s w e s ugge s t e d i n C PL C–II, e m p lo yth e le a s t r e s tr ic tiv e m e a n s to s a tis f yits in te r e s t in p r o v id in g th e e le c to r a te w ith in f o rm a tio n ; it n e e do n lye n s u r e th a t its m eans ar e s ub st ant i al l y r el at ed t o thati nt er es t . W as hi ng t on S t at e’ s di sc l osure s c h e m e p a s s e s th a t te s t. I nde e d, i ti s the S upr e m e C ourt ’ s de c i s i on i n C i t i ze ns U ni ted , r a the rtha n the pa ne l de c i s i on i n C

PL C–II, tha tpr ovi de s the be s tgui da nc e r e ga r di ng the const i tut i on al i ty of the D i sc l osure L aw ’ s r equi re m ent s. T he C i t i ze ns U ni ted C ou rt un ders core d the fund am ent al di st i nct i on betw ee n the bu rdens i m po se d b y f i nanci al r e g u la tio n s , se e C i t i

ze ns U ni ted , 130 S . C t . a t897, and thos e i m pos e d by d is c la im e ra n d d is c lo s u r e r e q u ir e m e n ts , se e i d. a t915–16. R e c ount i ng the s e r i e s of50

S u p r e m e C o u rt c a s e s th a t h a d u p h e ldd is c lo s u r e r e q u ir e m e n ts w h ile s im u lta n e o u s ly s tr i ki ng dow n othe rr e gul a t i ons on c a m pa i gn s pe e c h, the C ourta f f i rm e d a nd r e ite r a te d th e im p o rta n c e o f d is c lo s u r e r e q u ir e m e n ts –e v e n r e q u ir e m e n ts th a t ap p ly to is s u e a d v o c a c y–to th e g o v e rn m e n t’s in te r e s t in in f o rm in g th e e le c to r a te . I d. L i ke the r e qui r e m e nt s i n C i t i ze ns U ni ted , W as hi ng t on S t at e’ s pol i t i ca l c om m i tt e e di s c l os ur e r e qui r e m e nt s a r e notunc ons t i tut i ona l l ybur de ns om e r e l a t i ve t o the go vernm ent ’ s i nform at i on al i nt er es t . R ather, they are narr ow l y t ai l ored such th a t th e r e q u ir e d d is c lo s u r e in c r e a s e s a s ap o litic a l c o m m itte e m o r e a c tiv e ly engages i n cam pai gn spendi ng and as an el ec t i on near s. F i rs t , the re gi stra t i on form r e qui r e d of

a l l pol i t i c a l c om m i tt e e s i s tw o pa ge s l ong a nd e l i c i t s ba s i c i nf orm a t i on aboutthe or ga ni z a t i on’ s na m e , r e l a t i ons hi p w i th othe ror ga ni z a t i ons , a nd pe r s ons w i th author i tyove rthe or ga ni z a t i on’ s f i na nc e s . O nl ye nt i t i e s tha te xpe c tt o r a i s e or s pe nd m or e tha n $5, 000 i n ay e a rorr e c e i ve m or e tha n $500 f r om as i ngl e donor a r e r e q u ir e d to s u b m it a d d itio n a l r e p o rts . See W as h. A dm i n. C od e § 39 0-16 -105 et s e q. ( l i m i t i ng the r e qui r e m e nt s i m pos e d on pol i t i c a l c om m i tt e e s tha tm e e tthe enum er at ed cr i t er i a) . T hese com para t i vel y a ct i ve po l i t i ca l com m i tt ee s s ub m i tthree addi t i on al re po rt s, the t i m i ng of w hi ch i s pegged t o the el ec t i on i n w hi ch they are e n g a g in g . See W as h. R ev. C od e § 42 . 17 . 08 0. O nl y i f apo l i t i ca l com m i tt ee subj ec t to p o s t- r e g is tr a tio n r e p o rtin g r a is e s o rs p e n d s m o r e th a n $ 2 0 0 in ag iv e n m o n th51

m u s t it f ile af u rth e rr e p o rt p r o v id in g a n u p d a te o f its f in a n c ia l a c tiv itie s . Se e i d. § 4 2 .1 7 .0 8 0 . T h e s e d is c lo s u r e r e q u ir e m e n ts a r e n o t u n d u lyo n e r o u s , a n dth e ir t i m i ng a nd pa rt i c ul a ri nf orm a t i ona l r e qui r e m e nt s a r e s ubs t a nt i a l l yr e l a t e d t o the g o v e rn m e n t’s in f

o rm a tio n a l in te r e s t. O urc onc l us i on he r e i s c om pe l l e d byourde c i s i on i n ARTLC , i n wh i c h we h e ldth a t A la s k a ’s m a te r ia llyid e n tic a l p o litic a l c o m m itte e d is c lo s u r e r e q u ir e m e n ts s u rv iv e s tr ic t s c ru tin y . Se e ARTLC , 44 1 F . 3d at79 1. If A l as ka’ s di sc l osure re qu i re m ent s s urvi ve stri ctsc rut i ny, then, a f ort i ori , W as hi ng t on S t at e’ s di sc l osure r e qui r e m e nt s ( w hi c h pr om ot e the s a m e i m port a ntgove rnm e nt a l i nt e r e s t ) s urvi ve exac t i ng sc rut i ny. O ur ARTLC deci si on w as base d o n three grou nd s, ea ch of w hi ch i s e qua l l yappl i c abl e he r e . F i r s t , w e e xpl a i ne d tha tthe pr ovi s i ons a ti s s ue w e r e not af i na nc i a l l i m i t a t i on a nd r e qui r e d “ onl yr e port i ng of c ontr i but i ons t o, a nd of c o n tr ib u tio n s a n d e x p e n d itu r e s b y ,” r e g u la te de n titie s . I d. S ec on d, w e observed tha tthe r e w a s “ no a l l e ga t i on i n thi s c a s e tha tthe r e port i ng pr ovi s i ons l i m i tthe f u n d r a is in g ab ility ” o f

r e g u la te d e n titie s . I

d. ( di s t i ngui s hi ng M CF

L ). F i n a l l y , we not e d tha t , unl i ke the pr ovi s i ons i n M CF L , w hi c h e s s e nt i a l l yr e qui r e d m a j or s tru c tu r a l c h a n g e s t o a n o r g a n i z a t i o n , th e d i s c l o s u r e p r o v i s i o n s ap p l i e dt o ARTL C im p o s e d m in im a l, if

a n y , o r g a n iz a tio n a l b u r d e n s . I d. W e c o n clu d ed th at “[i] n l i ghtof the na tur e of

the bur de ns i m pos e d” bythe r e gi s tr a t i on a nd r e port i ng52

req u i rem en t s, th e ch al l en g ed d i scl o su re p ro v i si o n s p assed m u st er u n d er th e F i rst A m e n d m e n t. Id . at79 2. H er e, t oo , because the D i sc l osure L aw ’ s s om ew hat m ode s tpol i t i c a l c om m i tt e e di s c l os ur e r e qui r e m e nt s a r e s ubs t a nt i a l l yr e l a t e d t o the g o v ern m en t ’ s i n t eresti n i n fo rm i n g th e el ect o rat e, th ey su rv i v e ex act i n g scru t i n y. c . “ I nde pe nde nt Ex pe ndi t ur e ” a nd “ Po l i t i c a lA dv e r t i s i ng ” D e f i ni t i o ns W e n ex t tu rn to H u m an L ife’s c o n ten ti o n th at th e D isclo su re L aw ’s de f i ni t i ons f or“ i nde pe nde nte xpe ndi tur e ” a nd “ pol i t i c a l a dve rt i s i ng” a r e t oo e xpa ns i ve t o be s ubs t a nt i a l l yr e l a t e d t o the gove rnm e nt ’ s i m port a nti nt e r e s t . T he D is c lo s u r e L a w d e f

in e s “in d e p e n d e n t e x p e n d itu r e ” in te rm s o f m o n e ys p e n t “in s upportof

oroppos i t i on t o” ac a ndi da t e orba l l oti ni t i a t i ve , W a s h. R e v. C ode § 4 2. 17 . 10 0, and i tdefi nes “ po l i t i ca l advert i si ng ” a s m as s c om m un i ca t i on s “ used f orthe purpos e of

appe a l i ng, di r e c t l yori ndi r e c t l y , ” f ors upporti n a nye l e c t i on c a m p a ig n , id . § 4 2. 17 . 02 0(38 ). H um an L i fe ar gu es thatthese defi ni t i on s are f a c i a l l yunc ons t i tut i ona l be c aus e the ye nc om pa s s i s s ue a dvoc a c yi ns t e a d of ext endi ng on l y t o exp re ss advo ca cyor i t s f un ct i on al equi val ent . H um an L i fe c o n c e d e s th a t th e g o v e rn m e n t m a yim p o s e d is c lo s u r e r e q u ir e m e n ts o n ar a d io a d v e rtis e m e n t th a t e x p r e s s lyu r g e s W a s h in g to n ia n s to v o te f o ro ra g a in s t a p art i cu l ar b al l o ti n i t i at i v e, b u ti targ u es th atth e g o v ern m en tm ay n o ti m p o se di s c l os ur e r e qui r e m e nt s on a dve rt i s e m e nt s tha ta voi d r e f e r e nc e s t o pa rt i c ul a rba l l otA l though the F ourth C i r c ui ta dopt e d thi s pos i t i on i n L eake , 52 5 F . 3d at 5 2 8 1

– 8 3 , i t s d eci si o n p red at es C i t i ze ns U ni ted a nd R ee d

a n dth e r e f

o r e is u n p e r s u a s iv e in th e d is c lo s u r e c o n te x t. 53 i ni t i a t i ve s , a nd i ns t e a d s pe a k onl yaboutthe i s s ue s i nvol ve d i n pe ndi ng ba l l ot in itia tiv e s . I n o th e rw o r d s , H u m a n L if e a r g u e s th a t th e r e is ac o n s titu tio n a lly si gn i fi cantdi st i nct i on betw ee n an adv ert i se m entsayi ng , “ ph ys i ci an-a ss i st ed s ui c i de i s ba d pol i c y , ” a tat i m e w he n am e a s ur e l i ke I ni t i a t i ve 1000 i s on the ba l l ot an d an ad v er ti se m en t say in g , “ v o te ag ain st In it iati v e 1 0 0 0 .” H u m an L ife’s po si t i on i s thatthe l att eradvert i se m ent , w hi ch i s e xp re ss advo ca cy , m aybe subj ec t to d is c lo s u r e r e q u ir e m e n ts , w h e r e a s th e f o rm e ra d v e rtis e m e n t is c o n s titu tio n a lly sa cr osancti ss ue advo ca cythatm ayno tbe re gu l at ed. O n thi s bas i s, i tar gu es that the bu rdens i m po se d b y the D i sc l osure L aw ’ s pol i t i ca l com m i tt ee ob l i gat i on s are c a te g o r ic a llyu n c o n s titu tio n a l. 5 A r g u in g th a t B uckleye s tab lis h e dad is tin c tio n b e tw e e n th e ab ilityto r e g u la te ex p ress an d i ssu e ad v o cacy, H u m an L i fe ci t es W RTL . I n W

RTL , th e Su p r e me C ou rtconsi dere d the const i tut i on al i ty of afe dera l l i m i t at i on on cam pai gn spee ch th atp ro h i b i t ed “ el ect i o n eeri n g co m m u n i cat i o n s” d u ri n g cert ai n “ b l ack o u td at es” le a d in g u p to a n e le c tio n a s ap p lie dto th r e e a d v e rtis e m e n ts th a t W R T L w is h e dto p u r s u e . W

RTL , 551 U . S . a t464. A l though the a ds w e r e c l e a r l ypr ohi bi t e d bythe fe dera l st atut e, they di d n otcont ai n “ m agi c w ords of express advo ca cy ” a s54

i de nt i f i e d i n B uckley . T he C ourtha d a l r e a dyde t e rm i ne d i n Mc C o n n e ll thatsuch m a gi c w or ds w e r e notapr e r e qui s i t e t o r e gul a t i on a nd tha t , a s l ong a s the c o m m u n ic a tio n s w e r e th e “f u n c tio n a l e q u iv a le n t” o f e x p r e s s a d v o c a c y , th e yf e ll w ith in th e d e f

in itio n o f c o m m u n ic a tio n s c o n s titu tio n a llys u b je c t to d is c lo s u r e . Mc C o n n e ll , 54 0 U . S . at19 3– 94 . T hu s, the qu es t i on before the W RTL C ourtw a s the s c o p e o f th e d e f in itio n o f “f u n c tio n a l e q u iv a le n t.” T he C ou rtdefi ned “ expres s a dv ocac y or i t s f un ct i on al equi val ent ” a s com m un i ca t i on s “ susc ept i bl e of no reas on abl e i nt erpret at i on other than as an appeal t o v ot e f

or or agai nsta s peci fi c c andi dat e. ” W RTL , 5 5 1 U .S . a t 4 6 9

– 7 0 . T he C ou rtconcl ud ed thatW R T L ’ s a ds – w hi ch di d n otdi sc uss an i ss ue i n an u p c o m in g e le c tio n , d idn o t u r g e th e irau d ie n c e to v o te f o ro ra g a in s t a n yc a n d id a te or m ea sure , and m er el y e ncou ra ged ci t i ze ns t o con t ac tthei r s enat ors and urge them to o p p o s e a n o n g o in g f

ilib u s te r–w e r e n e ith e re x p r e s s a d v o c a c yn o r“s u s c e p tib le of no re as on abl e i nt erpret at i on other than as an app ea l for avo t e. ” I d. a t458–60, 47 0. B ec ause they di d n otfa l l w i thi n the expres s a dv ocac y c at egory thatw as au to m a tic a llyc o n s titu tio n a llyp e rm is s ib le , th e C o u rt s u b je c te dth e r e g u la tio n s to s tr ic t s c ru tin y . C o n c lu d in g th a t it h a d“n e v e rr e c o g n iz e dac o m p e llin g in te r e s t in re gu l at i ng ads, l i ke W R T L ’ s, thatar e nei ther e xp re ss advo ca cyno r i t s f un ct i on al55

e q u iv a le n t,” id. a t464–65, the C ourthe l d tha tthe a ds c oul d notc ons t i tut i ona l l ybe s u b je c t to th e f

e d e r a l p r o h ib itio n o n e le c tio n e e r in g c o m m u n ic a tio n s , id. a t466. A s a p re li m in ary m atter, w e c o u ldar g u ab ly d isp o se o f H u m an L ife’s c ha l l e nge t o the di s c l os ur e r e qui r e m e nt s byc onc l udi ng tha ti t s c om m uni c a t i ons const i tut e the funct i on al equi val entof expres s a dv ocac y und er W RTL . H um an L i f e ’ s pr opos e d c om m uni c a t i ons , e ve n i f the ydo notm e nt i on I ni t i a t i ve 1000 by nam e, ar e s usce pt i bl e of no reas on abl e i nt erpret at i on other than as an u rgentappeal t o vot e dow n the m e a s ur e . T he c om m uni c a t i ons e xpl i c i t l ys t a t e tha tphy s i c i a na s s i s t e d s ui c i de ha s r e e nt e r e d the r e a l m of publ i c de ba t e a nd tha tthe s i tua t i on dem ands ac t i on . E ven i f the com m un i ca t i on s w er e l es s obv i ou s, the W RTL C ou rt no t ed thatce rt ai n b ac kg roun d i nform at i on m aybe re l evanti n d et erm i ni ng w hether ac o m m u n ic a tio n c a n r e a s o n ab lyb e in te rp r e te do n lya s r e la tin g to as p e c if ic e le c tio n o rv o te . I

d. at4 7 3

– 7 4 . F o r ex am p l e, th e C o u rtm en t i o n ed as a c ons i de r a t i on the t i m i ng e l e m e nt– tha ti s , i f a n a d “ de s c r i be s al e gi s l a t i ve i s s ue thati s e i ther c urre nt l y the subj ec tof l egi sl at i ve sc rut i ny or l i kel y t o b e the subj ec t of s c rut i nyi n the ne a rf

utur e , ” i ti s m or e l i ke l yi ts houl d be i nt e rpr e t e d a s appe a l i ng f o rav o te . I

d. a t474 ( quot i ng Wis . Ri g h t to Li f e, I n c . v . FE C , 466 F . S upp. 2d 195, 207 ( D . D . C . 2006) ) . H um a n L i f e i t s e l f a dm i t s tha tt i m i ng i s pa rt i c ul a r l yr e l e va nt t o i t s pr opos e d c om m uni c a t i ons ; i n e l abor a t i ng on the bur de n i m pos e d bythe56

D i sc l osure L aw , i tst at ed i n i t s ver i fi ed com pl ai ntthat“ 20 08 i s an espec i al l y vi t al tim e f o rH L W to a d d r e s s th e p h y s ic ia n - a s s is te ds u ic id e is s u e b e c au s e p e o p le w ill agai n b e unu sual l y a tt ent i ve as i tsw i rl s t o the foref rontof pu bl i c a tt ent i on . ” G i ven the i rde t a i l e d l a ngua ge a nd uni que t i m i ng, the c om m uni c a t i ons pr opos e d by H um an L i fe ar e c ert ai nl y e xp re ss advo ca cyor i t s f un ct i on al equi val ent . M oreover, the a ds c a nnotbe c om pa r e d w i th the c om m uni c a t i ons a ti s s ue i n W RTL , w h ic h d id no ti nv ol ve an i ss ue thatw as the subj ec tof an el ec t i on and m er el y e ncou ra ged v o t ers t o en g ag e i n co m m u n i cat i o n w i th th ei r rep resen t at i v es. H o w e v e r , e v e n if

H u m a n L if

e ’s p r o p o s e dc o m m u n ic a tio n s c o n s titu te u n a d u l t e r a t e d i s s u e a d v o c a c y , i t s a r g u me n th a s b e e n f o r e c l o s e db yth e Su p r e me C ourt ’ s opi ni on i n C i t i

ze ns U ni ted . C o n s id e r in g th e p o s s ib ilityo f ab r ig h t- lin e ru le di st i ng ui shi ng expres s and i ss ue advo ca cy , the C ou rtst at ed, “ [W ] e r ej ec tC i t i ze n U ni t ed’ s c on t ent i on thatthe di sc l osure r equi re m ent s m ustbe l i m i t ed t o speec h that i s the funct i on al equi val entof expres s a dv ocac y. ” C i t i ze ns U ni ted , 13 0 S . C t . at 915. C i t i ng B uckley , M CF L , a nd Mc C o n n e ll , the C ou rtem ph as i ze d the es t abl i shed pr i nc i pl e tha t“ di s c l os ur e i s al e s s r e s tr i c t i ve a l t e rna t i ve t o m or e c om pr e he ns i ve re gu l at i on s of s peec h, ” and i tre ci t ed the l i stof deci si on s i n w hi ch the C ou rthad u p h e l d d i s c l o s u r e r e q u i r e m e n t s u n d e rth e s a m e p r i n c i p l e s i tu s e dt o s tr i k e d o wn f in a n c ia l lim ita tio n s . I

d. I n a ddi t i on, the C ourte xpl a i ne d tha tthe di s t i nc t i on57

b e tw e e n e x p r e s s a n d is s u e a d v o c a c yth a t w a s e s tab lis h e db yth e n a rr o w ly construed st atut ory def

i ni t i on s i n cas es l i ke W

RTL di d nottr ans l a t e i nt o the di s c l os ur e c ont e xt . T he C ourte xpl a i ne d:

C itiz e n s U n ite d c la im s th a t . . . [ t]h e p r in c ip a l o p in io n in W RTL l i m i t e d [ B C R A ’ s ] r e s tr i c t i ons on i nde pe nde nt expend i tures t o exp re ss advo ca cyand i t s f un ct i on al equi va l e nt . Ci t i z e ns U ni t e d s e e ks t o i mportas i mi l ar d is tin c tio n in to B C R A ’s d is c lo s u r e r e q u ir e m e n ts . W e re j ec tthi s c o n t ent i on . T he C ou rthas e xp l ai ned that di sc lo su re i s al es s r es tri ct i ve al t ernat i ve t o m ore c om pr e he ns i ve r e gul a t i ons of s pe e c h. I d. ( c i t a t i ons om i tt e d) . G i ve n the C ourt ’ s a na l y s i s i n C i t i ze ns U ni ted , a n dits hol di ng tha tthe gove rnm e ntm a yi m pos e di s c l os ur e r e qui r e m e nt s on s pe e c h, the po si t i on thatdi sc l osure r equi re m ent s c anno tconst i tut i on al l y r ea ch i ss ue advo ca cy i s unsup po rt abl e. I n a d v o c a tin g th a t p o s itio n , H u m a n L if e d o e s n o m o r e th a n r e ite r a te a r gum e nt s tha tha ve be e n r e j e c t e d bythe S upr e m e C ourt . F i r s t , i n uphol di ng the appl i c a t i on of

di s c l os ur e r e qui r e m e nt s t o e l e c t i one e r i ng c om m uni c a t i ons , the Mc C o n n e ll C o u rt r e

je c te d th e n o tio n th a t B uckleye s tab lis h e s “ac o n s titu tio n a lly m andat ed l i ne betw ee n exp re ss advo ca cyand so-ca l l ed i ss ue advo ca cy , and that speakers po ss es s an i nv i ol abl e F i rs tA m endm entri gh tt o eng age i n the l att er ca t egory of s peec h. ” Mc C o n n e ll , 5 4 0 U .S . a t 1 9 0 ; s e e al s o i d. a t193 ( r e

j e c t i ng the58

no t i on “ thatthe F i rs tA m endm enter ec t s ari gi d b arri erbetw ee n exp re ss advo ca cy a nd s o- c a l l e d i s s ue a dvoc a c y ” ) . T he C ourtf ound tha tthi s not i on “ m i s appr e he nds ourpr i orde c i s i ons ” be c aus e “ apl a i n r e a di ng of B uc kl e ym a ke s c l e a rtha tthe ex p ress ad v o cacy l i m i t at i o n , i n b o th th e ex p en d i tu re an dth e d i scl o su re co n t ex t s, w as the prod uctof st atut ory i nt erpret at i on ra ther than a const i tut i on al com m and. ” I d. at19 0– 91 . A l so, H um an L i fe ’ s e xp ansi ve re adi ng of W RTL as concl ud i ng that is s u e a d v o c a c yc a n n o t b e s u b je c t to d is c lo s u r e r e q u ir e m e n ts w a s r e je c te din C i t i ze ns U ni ted . T hu s, i m po si ng di sc l osure obl i gat i on s on com m un i ca t ors e ng aged i n i s s ue a dvoc a c yi s notpe rs e unc ons t i tut i ona l ; i ns t e a d, the c ons t i tut i ona l i tyof the o b lig a tio n s is d e te rm in e d b yw h e th e rth e ya r e s u b s ta n tia llyr e la te dto as u f f ic ie n tly im p o rta n t g o v e rn m e n ta l in te r e s t. H avi ng di spense d w i th the i dea thaton l y e xp re ss advo ca cyand i t s f un ct i on al e qui va l e nta r e s ubj e c tt o gove rnm e ntr e gul a t i on, a nd tha ta nygove rnm e nt r e gul a t i on of

i s s ue a dvoc a c yi s the r e f or e unc ons t i tut i ona l , w e turn t o the ope r a t i ve que s t i on: w he the rthe D i s c l os ur e L a w ’ s r e qui r e m e nt s f or“ i nde pe nde nt e xpe ndi tur e s ” a nd “ pol i t i c a l a dve rt i s i ng” a r e s ubs t a nt i a l l yr e l a t e d t o W a s hi ngt on S ta te ’s in f

o rm a tio n a l in te r e s t. W e c o n c lu d e th a t th e ya r e . I n C i t i ze ns U ni ted , th e S u p re m e C o u rt u n re se rv ed ly af firm ed th e p u b li c’s in te r e s t “in k n o w in g w h o is s p e a k in g ab o u t ac a n d id a te s h o rtlyb e f o r e a n e le c tio n ,”Indeed, the C i t i z e ns U ni te d C o u rtreco g n i zed n o to n l y th e p u b l i c’ s i n t erest 6 in k n o w in g w h o is s p e a k in g ab o u t ac a n d id a te , a n dw h ic h d o n o r s m ig h t w ie ld i nf l ue nc e ove rac a ndi da t e , buta l s o the i nt e r e s tof s ha r e hol de r s i n de t e rm i ni ng “w h e th e rth e irc o rp o r a tio n ’s p o litic a l s p e e c h a d v a n c e s th e c o rp o r a tio n ’s in te r e s t in m aki ng profi t s. ” C i t i

ze ns U ni ted , 130 S . C t . a t916. T he C ourtr e c ogni z e d tha tthe va l ue of the i nf orm a t i on ge ne r a t e d bydi s c l os ur e w a s notl i m i t e d t o i nf orm i ng v o te r s h o w to v o te , b u t in c lu d e d p r o v id in g c itiz e n s w ith th e ab ility“to h o ld co rp o rat i o n s an d el ect ed o ffi ci al s acco u n t ab l e fo r th ei r p o si t i o n s an dsu p p o rt ers” and “ t o rea ctt o the spee ch of corporat e e nt i t i es i n a prop erw ay . ” I d. T he r e a l i tyof

thi s c orpor a t e a c c ount abi l i tyf unc t i on i s i l l us tr a t e d bythe pu bl i c’ s r ea ct i on i n A ug ust20 10 t o a po l i t i ca l contri bu t i on by T ar gett o an ant i -gay g u b e rn a to r ia l c a n d id a te . See J iaL y n n Y a n g & D a n E g g e n , Cam pai gn Spe ndi ng P ut s T arget i n B ul l ’s -E

ye , W a s h. P os t , A ug. 19, 2010. A f t e rdi s c l os ur e of

the contri bu t i on sparked an o ut cry f rom the gay c om m un i ty, on e c am pai gn fi nance expertsugg es t ed thatm aj or corporat i on s “ ar e now l i kel y t o thi nk tw i ce before gi vi ng corporat e m on eyt o g roup s thatm ayl at erprov e c on trovers i al . ” I d. 59 and i tconcl ud ed that“ the i nform at i on al i nt er es tal on e” w as suff i ci entt o sup po rt fed eral cam p ai g n fi n an ce d i scl o su re req u i rem en t s. C i t i ze ns U ni ted , 13 0 S . C t . at 6 915–16 . U phol di ng the l i ne of c a s e s tha tr e c ogni z e the i m port a nc e of the gove rnm e nt ’ s i nf

orm a t i ona l i nt e r e s t , the C ourtr e a s one d: T he F i r s tA m e ndm e ntpr ot e c t s pol i t i c a l s pe e c h; a nd di s c l os ur e pe rm i t s c i t i z e ns a nd s ha r e hol de r s t o r e a c tt o the s p e e c h o f

c o rp o r a te e n titie s in ap r o p e rw a y . T h is transpare ncy e nabl es the elec t orat e t o m ake i nform ed de c i s i ons a nd gi ve pr ope rw e i ghtt o di f f e r e nts pe a ke r s a nd m e s s a g e s . I d. a t916. A s i n C i t i

ze ns U ni ted , W a s h in g to n v o te r s ’ in te r e s t in k n o w in g w h o is s pe a ki ng aboutphy s i c i a n- a s s i s t e d s ui c i de s hort l ybe f or e the vot e on aba l l ot60

i ni t i a t i ve tha tpr opos e s t o l e ga l i z e tha tpr a c t i c e i s s uf f i c i e ntt o s upportthe D i sc l osure L aw ’ s r equi re m ent s. U nd erthese ci rc um st ance s, w here the “ [v] ot er s ac tas l egi sl at ors, ” C

PL C–I, 3 2 8 F .3 da t 1 1 0 6 , th e g o v e rn m e n t h a s av ita l in te r e s t in pr ovi di ng the publ i c w i th i nf orm a t i on aboutw ho i s try i ng t o s w a yi t s opi ni on. T he abi l i tyof vot e r s t o de t e rm i ne w ho i s be hi nd the a dve rt i s e m e nt s s e e ki ng t o s hape th e irv ie w s is in te g r a l to th e “f u ll r e a liz a tio n o f

th e A m e r ic a n id e a l o f

g o v e rn m e n t.” H a rriss , 3 4 7 U . S . at6 2 5 . G i v en th e co m p l ex d et ai l i n v o l v ed i n b al l o ti n i t i at i v es, a nd the s he e rvol um e of r e l e va nti nf

orm a t i on c onf

r ont i ng vot e r s , vot e r s c a nnotbe e x p e c te d to m a k e s u c h ad e te rm in a tio n o n th e iro w n . T h u s , to p r e v e n t th e p u b lic f r om be i ng m i s l e d bys pe c i a l i nt e r e s tgr oups “ m a s que r a di ng a s pr opone nt s of the p u b lic w e a l,” th e v o te r s w h o p a s s e dW a s h in g to n ’s D is c lo s u r e L a w “m e r e ly pr ovi de d f

oram odi c um of

i nf orm a t i on f

r om thos e ” w ho w i s h t o i nf l ue nc e the p u b lic ’s v o te . I

d. ; s e e a ls o Mc C o n n e ll , 540 U . S . a t196–97 ( not i ng tha tgr oups som et i m es use “ du bi ou s and m i sl ea di ng nam es , ” l i ke “ C i t i ze ns for B ett er M e d ic a r e ,” ag r o u p f

u n d e d b yth e p h a rm a c e u tic a l in d u s try ) ; E d ito r ia l, T he Secr et E le c t i on , N . Y . T i m e s , S e pt . 18, 2010 ( not i ng the abi l i tyof 501( c ) ( 4) or ga ni z a t i ons

“ w i th di s i nge nuous l yi nnoc uous na m e s l i ke A m e r i c a n C r os s r oa ds a nd the A m e r i c a n A c t i on N e tw ork” t o s e rve a s “ af unne l f ora nony m ous c a m pa i gn61

d o n a tio n s ” ) . W e h a v e n o tr o u b le c o n c lu d in g th a t W a s h in g to n ’s in te r e s t in in f o rm in g th e e le c to r a te th r o u g h th e D is c lo s u r e L a w is s u f f ic ie n tlyim p o rta n t. B e f or e a na l y z i ng the r e l a t i ons hi p be tw e e n the pa rt i c ul a rbur de ns i m pos e d by th e D is c lo s u r e L a w a n d th e g o v e rn m e n t in te r e s ts it f u rth e r s , w e n o te th a t th e r e is l es s danger of a r egul at i on sw ee pi ng t oo broadl y i n the cont extof a bal l otm ea sure than i n a cand i dat e e l ec t i on . A s the di stri ctcourtno t ed, w here a di sc l osure r e q u ir e m e n t r e g u la te s is s u e a d v o c a c y , th e s c o p e o f th a t r e g u la tio n is n a tu r a lly “m o r e ta r g e te d a n d lim ite d ” w h e n th e r e le v a n t v o te in v o lv e s ab a llo t in itia tiv e . H u m a n L ife , 20 09 W L 62 14 4, at*1 8. “ B al l oti ni t i at i ves pre se nta s i ng l e is s ue f or pu bl i c r ef

er endu m , ” and thu s the on l y r el evantcam pai gn spee ch thata di sc l osure r e q u ir e m e n t c o u ldr e a c h is “s p e e c h in te n d e dto in f lu e n c e th e v o te r ’s o p in io n a s to the m e r i t s of

thi s s i ngl e i s s ue – i n othe rw or ds , i ti s ‘ i s s ue a dvoc a c y , ’ pl a i n a nd si m pl e. ” I

d. W he r e a s the br oa dl yde f i ne d r e gul a t i on of

c a m pa i gn s pe e c h i n the cand i dat e e l ec t i on cont ext“ threa t ens t o b urden d ebat e on a br oad r ange o f i ssu es – i nd ee d, any i ss ue thati s arguabl y ‘ pert i nent ’ t o the el ec t i on , ” broadl y def i ned s pe e c h r e gul a t i on i n the ba l l otm e a s ur e c ont e xtpos e s am uc h l e s s s i gni f i c a nt bur de n; i n the ba l l otc ont e xt , the onl yi s s ue a dvoc a c ytha tc oul d pot e nt i a l l ybe re gu l at ed i s a dv ocac y r egar di ng “ the s in g le i ss ue pu tbefore the pu bl i c. ” I d. T h u s, th e p o te n tia l o f

th e D is c lo s u r e L a w to in c id e n ta llyr e g u la te is s u e a d v o c a c y , toC om pare thi s t o a cand i dat e e l ec t i on , w here there i s agrea t erdi st ance 7 be tw e e n s pe e c h ur gi ng avot e f orora ga i ns tapa rt i c ul a rc a ndi da t e a nd a dvoc a t i ng or att ac ki ng on e of a“ broad range of i ss ues” on w hi ch the cand i dat e m ayhave a p a rt i c u l a rv i e w. 62 w hi c h H um a n L i f

e obj e c t s , w oul d e nge nde rf a rm or e c onc e rn i f

the r e l e va nt e l e c t i on i nvol ve d ac a ndi da t e . I n the ba l l oti ni t i a t i ve c ont e xt , on the othe rha nd, w here expres s and i ss ue advo ca cyar e arguabl y “ on e and the sam e, ” any i nci dent al r e g u la tio n o f

is s u e a d v o c a c yim p o s e s m o r e lim ite db u r d e n s th a t a r e m o r e lik e lyto be s ubs t a nt i a l l yr e l a t e d t o the gove rnm e nt ’ s i nt e r e s t s . B e c aus e r e gul a t i on of i s s ue a dvoc a c yi n the ba l l otc ont e xti s vi rtua l l yi ndi s t i ngui s habl e f r om r e gul a t i on of expres s a dv ocac y ( an adm i tt edl y app ropri at e e nt erpri se ), such re gu l at i on i s m ore cl osel y r el at ed t o the go vernm ent ’ s i nt er es ti n i nform i ng the el ec t orat e. W e a gree w ith th e d istrict co u rt’s re as o n in g th at “[f]ro m th e p er sp ec ti v e o f th e s tate’s c o m p e llin g in te r e s t,” it m a k e s little d if f e r e n c e w h e th e rs p e e c h u r g e s th e p u b lic to v o te f o ro ra g a in s t ab a llo t m e a s u r e im p lic a tin g ap a rtic u la ris s u e o rw h e th e rit a dvoc a t e s ora tt a c ks tha tpa rt i c ul a ri s s ue w hi l e the ba l l otm e a s ur e i s pe ndi ng. 7 T he part i cul arre qu i re m ent s of W as hi ng t on ’ s D i sc l osure L aw ar e subst ant i al l y r el at ed t o the go vernm ent ’ s i nform at i on al i nt er es ti n thatthey t ar get onl ythos e e xpe ndi tur e s a nd a dve rt i s e m e nt s m a de i n c onj unc t i on w i th a n ongoi ng e l e c t i on orvot e . R e port i ng r e qui r e m e nt s do note xt e nd i ndi s c r i m i na t e l yt o a l l i s s ue63

a dvoc a c yc onduc t e d a ta nyt i m e – r e gul a t i ng, f ore xa m pl e , a n a dve rt i s e m e ntabout p h y s ic ia n - a s s is te d s u ic id e p la c e d a t atim e w h e n n o r e la te db a llo t m e a s u r e is p e n d in g . R a th e r , b yd e f in itio n , d is c lo s u r e o b lig a tio n s d o n o t ap p lyab s e n t a p e n d in g e le c tio n o rb a llo t in itia tiv e c a m p a ig n . See W a s h. R e v. C ode § 4 2 .1 7 .1 0 0 ( 1 ) ( d e f

in in g “in d e p e n d e n t e x p e n d itu r e ” a s a n e x p e n d itu r e m a d e to s u p p o rt o ro p p o s e a“c a n d id a te o rb a llo t p r o p o s itio n ” ) ; id . § 42. 17. 020( 38) (def i ni ng “ po l i t i ca l advert i si ng ” a s c om m un i ca t i on s thatsupp ortor op po se an “e le c tio n c a m p a ig n ” ) . M o r e o v e r , o n c e th e in itia l tw o - p a g e r e g is tr a tio n f o rm is f i l e d, the f

i l i ng of a ddi t i ona l s pe c i a l r e port s i s pe gge d t o the da t e s of the upc om i ng e le c tio n . F o rin d e p e n d e n t e x p e n d itu r e s , a n in itia l f in a n c ia l d is c lo s u r e r e p o rt is r e qui r e d onl yi f

c e rt a i n f i na nc i a l thr e s hol ds a r e pa s s e d “ dur i ng the . . . e l e c t i on c a m p a ig n ,” a n d s u b s e q u e n t r e p o rtin g r e q u ir e m e n ts , w h ic h b e c o m e d u e a s th e d a te of the vot e appr oa c he s , a r i s e onl yi f a ddi t i ona l e xpe ndi tur e s ha ve be e n m a de d u r in g th e c a m p a ig n p e r io d . I d. § 42. 17. 100( 2) –( 3) . S i m i l a r l y , s pe c i a l r e port s f or pol i t i c a l a dve rt i s i ng a r e r e qui r e d onl yi f the a dve rt i s e m e ntha s af a i rm a rke tva l ue o f m o r e th a n $ 1 ,0 0 0 a n d th e a d v e rtis e m e n t is ru n d u r in g th e th r e e - w e e kru n - u p to th e v o te . Se e i d. § 42. 17. 103( 1) . A l l di s c l os ur e obl i ga t i ons c e a s e s hort l ya f t e rthe r e le v a n t v o te h a s ta k e n p la c e . Id . § 4 2 .1 7 .1 0 0 ( 3 ) .64

T hu s, un der the D i sc l osure L aw , an organi za t i on engagi ng i n i ss ue advo ca cy l i ke H um a n L i f

e m a ya voi d di s c l os ur e r e qui r e m e nt s a nyt i m e tha tthe i s s ue about w h ic h it is s p e a k in g is n o t th e s u b je c t o f ab a llo t in itia tiv e o ro th e rp u b lic v o te . O nce the i ss ue becom es the subj ec tof a bal l oti ni t i at i ve ca m pai gn , H um an L i fe m a yc ont i nue t o a dvoc a t e a l l i tw a nt s ; the onl ydi f f e r e nc e i s tha ti tm us tpr ovi de c e rta in d is c lo s u r e s a t tim e s tie d to th e d a te o f th e v o te . H u m a n L if

e its e lf r e c ogni z e s the uni que i m port a nc e of the t e m por a l w i ndow i m m e di a t e l ypr e c e di ng a vot e . A s i ts t a t e d i n i t s c om pl a i nt , the y e a r2008 w a s “ as pe c i a l opportuni ty ” a nd

“ an es peci al l y vi t al t i m e” for i tt o d i sc uss physi ci an-a ss i st ed sui ci de. Itexpl ai ned th at“ [b ] ecau se p h ysi ci an -assi st ed su i ci d e i s n o w esp eci al l y i n th e p u b l i c aw aren ess a nd de ba t e , pe opl e w i l l be pa rt i c ul a r l yr e c e pt i ve t o a r gum e nt s aboutthe phy s i c i a nas si st ed sui ci de i ss ue. ” F or the sam e r ea sons thatH um an L i fe had a hei gh t ened i nt e r e s ti n s pe a ki ng aboutphy s i c i a n- a s s i s t e d s ui c i de dur i ng the run- up t o the I ni t i a t i ve 1000 vot e , W a s hi ngt oni a ns ha d ahe i ght e ne d i nt e r e s ti n know i ng w ho w a s try in g to s w a yth e irv ie w s o n th e to p ic a n dh o w m u c h th e yw e r e w illin g to s p e n d to a c h ie v e th a t g o a l. W e c o n c lu d e th a t th e D is c lo s u r e L a w ’s r e q u ir e m e n ts f o rin d e p e n d e n t e x p e n d itu r e s a n d p o litic a l a d v e rtis in g a r e s u b s ta n tia llyr e la te dtoH um a n L i f e a l s o c ha l l e nge s the c ons t i tut i ona l i tyof as e pa r a t e W a s hi ngt on 8 r e gul a t i on pr ovi di ng tha t“ [ a ] nype r s on m a ki ng am e a s ur abl e e xpe ndi tur e of f unds t o c om m uni c a t e ar a t i ng, e va l ua t i on, e ndor s e m e ntorr e c om m e nda t i on f oror a g a in s t ac a n d id a te o rb a llo t p r o p o s itio n s h a ll r e p o rt s u c h e x p e n d itu r e in c lu d in g a ll cost s of pre para t i on and d i stri bu t i on i n acc ordance w i th chapt er42 . 17 R C W . ” W a s h . A d m in . C o d e § 3 9 0 - 1 6 - 2 0 6 . H u m a n L if e a r g u e s th a t th is r e g u la tio n is u n c o n s titu tio n a l b e c au s e it u s e s th e p h r a s e “f o ro ra g a in s t” in s te a do f “e x p r e s s ly f orora ga i ns t . ” W e a l r e a dyha ve r e j e c t e d H um a n L i f

e ’ s a r gum e nttha ti s s ue a dvoc a c yi s nots ubj e c tt o di s c l os ur e r e qui r e m e nt s . I n a nye ve nt , thi s r e gul a t i on d o e s n o t c r e a te n e w d is c lo s u r e r e q u ir e m e n ts , b u t r a th e rc lar if ie s th a t c e rta in com m un i ca t i on s – i ncl ud i ng new spaperedi t ori al s and new s c om m ent ar i es – are e x e m p t f r o m th e D is c lo s u r e L a w ’s r e q u ir e m e n ts . Se e i d. ( c r os s - r e f e r e nc i ng W a s h. R e v. C ode § 42. 17. 020( 15) ( b) ( i v) , ( 21) ( c ) ; W a s h. A dm i n. C ode §§ 390- 16- 313 ( 2 ) ( b ) , 3 9 0 - 0 5 - 2 9 0 ) . 65 th a t in te r e s t. 8 C . V ag u en es s C h al l en ges “A la w is u n c o n s titu tio n a llyv a g u e if it f a ils to p r o v id e ar e a s o n ab le opportuni tyt o know w ha tc onduc ti s pr ohi bi t e d, ori s s o i nde f i ni t e a s t o a l l ow arbi traryand d i sc ri m i nat ory e nforcement. ” T ucson W om an ’s C l i ni c v . E den , 379 F .3 d 5 3 1 , 5 5 5 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) ( c ita tio n s o m itte d ) ; see a l so Ca n yo n Ferry , 556 F . 3d a t1030 ( f

i ndi ng unc ons t i tut i ona l va gue ne s s w he r e a n e nt i ty“ ha d no w a yof know i ng ex a n te ” th a t its c o n d u c t w o u ldb e c o v e r e db yth e c h a lle n g e ds ta tu te ) .

“ N everthel es s, perf

ec tcl ar i ty i s notre qu i re d even w hen a l aw re gu l at es prot ec t ed spee ch, ” Cal . T

eachers A ss ’n v. State B d. of E du c. , 27 1 F . 3d 11 41 , 11 50 (9th C i r. 2 0 0 1 ) , a n d “w e c an n e v e re x p e c t m a th e m a tic a l c e rta in tyf r o m o u rla n g u a g e ,”T hrou gh ou ti t s bri ef s, H um an L i fe ar gu es thatvari ou s D i sc l osure L aw 9 p r o v i s i o n s a r e “ v a g u e a n d o v e rb r o a d . ” W i th th e e x c e p t i o n o f th e tw o t e rms di sc usse d i n thi s s ec t i on (i . e. , “ expect at i on ” and “ m as s c om m un i ca t i on ”) , H um an L ife’s a rg u m en ts ce n ter o n th e a ss er ted o v erb re ad th o f th e D isclo su re L aw ’s p r o v is io n s , n o t th e irv a g u e n e s s . T h is ap p r o a c h is n o t u n u s u a l. See Kol ender v . L aw s on , 4 6 1 U . S . 3 5 2 , 3 5 8 n . 8 (1 9 8 3 ) (“ [W ] e h av e trad i t i o n al l y v i ew ed v ag u en ess a n d o v e rb r e a d th a s lo g ic a llyr e la te da n ds im ila rd o c tr in e s .” ) ; Cal . T eachers A ss ’n , 2 7 1 F .3 d a t 1 1 5 1 ( “A s ta tu te ’s v a g u e n e s s e x c e e d s c o n s titu tio n a l lim its if its de t e rr e nte f

f e c ton l e gi t i m a t e e xpr e s s i on i s both r e a l a nd s ubs t a nt i a l , a nd i f the s ta tu te is n o t r e a d ilys u b je c t to an a rr o w in g c o n s tru c tio n b yth e s ta te c o u rts .” (a l t er at i on s and i nt ernal qu ot at i on m arks om i tt ed)) . W e a l re ady have addres se d H um a n L i f

e ’ s “ ove rbr e a dth” a r gum e nt s above i ns of a ra s w e ha ve he l d tha tthe defi ni t i on s of “ i nd ependentexpend i ture” and “ po l i t i ca l advert i si ng ” do n otbu rden m o r e s p e e c h th a n is c o n s titu tio n a llyp e rm is s ib le u n d e re x a c tin g s c ru tin y . I n th is se ct i on , w e a dd re ss the tw o st atut ory t erm s thatH um an L i fe spec i fi ca l l y c hal l enges o n v ag u en ess g ro u n d s. 66 G ra yn ed v. C i t y o f R o ckf o rd , 40 8 U . S . 10 4, 11 0 (19 72 ). H um an L i fe ar gu es that tw o t erm s i n the D i sc l osure L aw ar e uncon st i tut i on al l y vague: “ expect at i on ” a s used i n the defi ni t i on of “ po l i t i ca l com m i tt ee , ” and “ m as s c om m un i ca t i on ” a s use d i n the defi ni t i on of “ po l i t i ca l advert i si ng . ” A l tho ug h v agueness chal l enges bas ed 9 on a s t atut e’ s f

ai l ure t o p rovi de the “ re as on abl e opp ortun i ty t o k no w w hatcond uct i s pr ohi bi t e d” a r e ge ne r a l l ybr oughtw he r e c r i m i na l s a nc t i ons m a ybe i m pos e d, se e B uckley , 4 2 4 U . S . at4 0

– 4 1 , th e S u p rem e C o u rth as al so h el dth at“ [b ] ecau se F i rst A m e n d m e n t f

r e e d o m s n e e d b r e a th in g s p a c e to s u rv iv e , g o v e rn m e n t m a yr e g u la te i n the ar eaon l y w i th n arrow spec i fi ci ty, ” N A A C P v . B ut ton , 371 U . S . 415, 433 (196 3) (c on si deri ng a vagueness chal l enge t o a st at e s up re m e c ou rt ’ s dec l ar at oryT he D i s c l os ur e L a w i m pos e s c i vi l pe na l t i e s f orvi ol a t i ons , W a s h. R e v. 10 C o d e § 4 2 .1 7 .3 9 0 , a n d d o e s n o t p r e c lu d e c r im in a l s a n c tio n s w h e r e ap p r o p r ia te , se e S ta te v . C o n te , 15 4 P . 3d 19 4, 19 8 (W as h. 20 07 ). 67 j udgm e nt , w hi c h de f

i ne d the purvi e w of

s t a t e l a w s pr ohi bi t i ng c e rt a i n s ol i c i t a t i ons o f le g a l b u s in e s s ) ; se e al

so G rayned , 4 0 8 U . S . at1 0 9 (co n si d eri n g a v ag u en ess c ha l l e nge w he r e the appe l l a ntw a s f i ne d $25 f

orvi ol a t i ons of

a nt i pi c ke t i ng a nd a nt i noi s e or di na nc e s , a nd s t a t i ng tha t“ w he r e ava gue s t a tut e ‘ abut [ s ] upon s e ns i t i ve a r e a s of

ba s i c F i r s tA m e ndm e ntf r e e dom s , ’ i t‘ ope r a t e s t o i nhi bi tthe e xe r c i s e of

[ thos e ] f r e e dom s ’ ” ( a l t e r a t i ons i n or i gi na l ) ( f ootnot e s a nd c i t a t i ons om i tt ed)) . 10 1 . “ Ex pe c t a t i o n” A n e nt i tyqua l i f

i e s a s a“ pol i t i c a l c om m i tt e e ” i f i tha s “ the e xpe c t a t i on” of s p e n d in g o rr e c e iv in g m o n e yto s u p p o rt o ro p p o s e ac a n d id a te o rb a llo t in itia tiv e . W a s h . R e v . C o d e § 4 2 .1 7 .0 1 0 . H u m a n L if e a r g u e s th a t th e w o r d“e x p e c ta tio n ” is un const i tut i on al l y vague, as i tcoul d b e i nt erpret ed t o m ean anythi ng fr om a “ ho pe” t o a“ c ontr a c t . ” W e di s a gr e e . T he m e a ni ng of the w or d “ e xpe c t a t i on” f orthe pu rposes of the D i sc l osure L aw ’ s def i ni t i on of “ po l i t i ca l com m i tt ee ” has been c la r if ie d th r o u g h ju d ic ia l in te rp r e ta tio n . F ir s t, a s d is c u s s e dab o v e , a n e n tity b e c o m e s ap o litic a l c o m m itte e u n d e rth e D is c lo s u r e L a w ’s “e x p e n d itu r e s ” p r o n g if o n e o f its p r im a ryp u rp o s e s is p o litic a l a d v o c a c y . Se e E v e r gr e e n Fr e e dom Found. ,68

4 9 P .3 d a t 9 0 2

– 0 3 . O n c e a n e n tityd e m o n s tr a te s s u f f ic ie n t p o litic a l a c tiv ityto qua l i f yunde rthi s s t a nda r d, the r e c a n be l i tt l e doubttha ti tw i l l “ e xpe c t ” t o m a ke expend i tures re l at ed t o thatpo l i t i ca l ac t i vi ty. S ec on d, an ent i ty bec om es a pol i t i ca l com m i tt ee un der the “ contri bu t i on s” pron g i f the ent i ty has gi ven the pu bl i c “ ac tual orc ons truc t i ve know l e dge tha tthe or ga ni z a t i on i s s e tt i ng a s i de f unds t o s upportor op po se a c andi dat e or bal l otprop osi t i on . ” I d. a t904. A r guabl y , a n or ga ni z a t i on w oul d notnot i f

ythe publ i c tha tf

unds w oul d be us e d f

orpol i t i c a l a dvoc a c yi f

the or ga ni z a t i on di d note xpe c tt o r e c e i ve f unds f ortha tpurpos e . B e c aus e the

“ pr i m a rypurpos e ” t e s ta nd “ a c tua l orc ons truc t i ve know l e dge ” t e s tgr a f ti nt o the w ord “ expect at i on ” the concret e, di sc erni bl e c ri t er i a nec es saryt o p re ventarbi trary a nd di s c r i m i na t orye nf

or c e m e nt , w e c onc l ude tha tthe t e rm “ e xpe c t a t i on” i s not u n c o n s titu tio n a llyv a g u e . 2 . “ M a s s C o m m uni c a t i o n”

“ P ol i t i ca l advert i si ng ” f or pu rposes of the D i sc l osure L aw encom pass es n ew sp ap er ad v ert i sem en t s, b i l l b o ard s, si g n s, l ett ers, “ o r o th er m ean s o f m ass c om m uni c a t i on. ” W a s h. R e v. C ode § 42. 17. 020( 38) . H um a n L i f e a r gue s tha tthe p h rase “oth er m ean s o f m ass co m m u n i cat i o n ” i s u n co n st i tu t i o n al l y v ag u e b ecau se it is im p o s s ib le to d e te rm in e h o w b r o a d lyd is tr ib u te dac o m m u n ic a tio n m u s t b e to f a ll w ith in th e a m b it o f

th e s ta tu te .69

H ow e ve r , “ s pe c ul a t i on aboutpos s i bl e va gue ne s s i n hypothe t i c a l s i tua t i ons n o t b e f o r e th e C o u rt w ill n o t s u p p o rt af a c ia l a tta c ko n as ta tu te w h e n it is s u r e ly val i d ‘ i n the vastm aj ori ty of i t s i nt ended app l i ca t i on s. ’ ” Hi l l v . C olor ado , 530 U . S . 703, 733 ( 2000) ( quot i ng U ni ted States v. R ai nes , 3 6 2 U .S . 1 7 , 2 3 ( 1 9 6 0 ) ) . M oreover, “ otherw i se i m prec i se t erm s m ayavoi d v agueness prob l em s w hen u se d in c o m b in a tio n w ith te rm s th a t p r o v id e s u f f ic ie n t c la r ity ,” G a m m o h v . Ci t yo f La H a b ra , 395 F . 3d 1114, 1120 ( 9th C i r . 2005) , a nd va gue ne s s c ha l l e nge s w i l l be re j ec t ed w hen i ti s “ cl ear w hatthe ordi nance as a w ho l e prohi bi t s, ” G rayned , 408 U . S . a t110.

“ W hen C on gres s does notdefi ne a t erm i n a st atut e, w e c on strue thatt erm a c c o r d in g to its o r d in a ry , c o n te m p o r a ry , c o m m o n m e a n in g .” U ni ted States v. Ki lbr i de , 584 F . 3d 1240, 1257 ( 9th C i r . 2009) ( quot i ng Un i te d S ta te s v . W. R. G race , 504 F . 3d 745, 755 ( 9th C i r . 2007) ) . “ M a s s ” i s de f i ne d a s “ [ d] i r e c t e d a tor re ac hi ng a l ar ge nu m ber of peopl e. ” W ebst er ’ s I I N ew R i vers i de D i ct i on ary ( 1984) . “ C om m uni c a t i on” i s de f i ne d a s “ [ t ] he e xc ha nge of i de a s , m e s s a ge s , or i nf orm a t i on, a s bys pe e c h, s i gna l s , orw r i t i ng” or“ [ a ] s y s t e m f ors e ndi ng a nd re ce i vi ng m es sa ges, as by m ai l , t el epho ne, or t el evi si on . ” I d. T h e o n ly c om m uni c a t i on pr opos e d byH um a n L i f e note xpr e s s l yc ove r e d bythe de f i ni t i on ofH um an L i f e ’ s pr opos e d l e tt e r s a nd r a di o a ds a r e c l e a r l yc ove r e d bythe 11 st atut e’ s e nu m er at i on of “ l ett er s” and “ ra di o o r t el evi si on pres ent at i on s” as p o litic a l a d v e rtis e m e n ts . See W as h. R ev. C od e § 42 . 17 . 02 0(38 ). 70 “ po l i t i ca l advert i si ng ” i s i t s pl anned t el em arket i ng cam pai gn . W e c on cl ud e that 11 thi s c a m pa i gn c l e a r l yf

a l l s w i thi n the or di na rym e a ni ng of “ m a s s c om m uni c a t i on” a n d th a t th e r e is n o r e a s o n to b e lie v e th a t th e s c o p e o f th a t te rm w ill b e o v e r ly va gue “ i n the va s tm a

j or i tyof i t s i nt e nde d appl i c a t i ons . ” M or e ove r , gi ve n the l engthy l i stof other s i m i l arcovered com m un i ca t i on s, as w el l as the cl ear purpo se s of the D i s c l os ur e L a w , w e f i nd tha ti ti s s uf

f i c i e nt l ye vi de ntw hi c h c om m uni c a t i ons w i l l be s ubj e c tt o the D i s c l os ur e L a w ’ s r e qui r e m e nt s f orpol i t i c a l a dve rt i s i ng. F or th e s e r e a s o n s , w e r e

je c t H u m a n L if

e ’s c o n te n tio n th a t “m a s s c o m m u n ic a tio n ” is un const i tut i on al l y vague. D . A s- A p p l i ed C h al l en ges In addi t i on t o i t s f

ac i al chal l enges, H um an L i fe chal l enges the D i sc l osure L a w a s ap p lie d to H u m a n L if e a n dits p r o p o s e da d v o c a c ya c tiv itie s . H o w e v e r , it d o es so i n n am e o n l y. H u m an L i fe d o es n o tp ro v i d e an y ev i d en ce t o su p p o rtan asappl i ed chal l enge, and i tdo es no tdi st i ng ui sh betw ee n i t s f ac i al and as- appl i ed cl ai m s i n i t s bri ef

s. Itdo es no t , for e xam pl e, expl ai n h ow the D i sc l osure L aw im p in g e s u p o n its a s s o c ia tio n a l f r e e d o m s . Se e, e . g. , C i t i ze ns U ni ted , 13 0 S . C t . at 914 ( c i t i ng B uckley , 424 U . S . a t74) ( r e c ogni z i ng tha tthe r e a s onabl e pr obabi l i tyof71

ha r a s s m e nta s ar e s ul tof di s c l os ur e m a ybe a n undue bur de n on F i r s tA m e ndm e nt r ig h ts ) . N o rd o e s it o f

f e ra n ys u p p o rt f

o rits a s s e rtio n th a t H u m a n L if e , b yits n a tu r e , is u n ab le to c o m p lyw ith th e D is c lo s u r e L a w ’s r e q u ir e m e n ts . Se e, e . g. , M CF L , 4 7 9 U .S . a t 2 5 5 ( n o tin g th a t c o m p lia n c e w ith th e f e d e r a l c o rp o r a te se gregat ed fund re qu i re m ent s w ou l d ess ent i al l y r equi re M C F L “ t o ass um e am ore so p h isti ca ted o rg an izatio n al fo rm ”) . A lso , as n o ted ab o v e, so m e o f H u m an L ife’s p r o p o s e d c o m m u n ic a tio n s , w h ic h e x p lic itlyr e f e r e n c e I n itia tiv e 1 0 0 0 , c o n s titu te

“ e x p r e s s a d v o c a c y ” th a two u l d b e s u b j e c tt o d i s c l o s u r e r e q u i r e m e n t s e v e n i f we a c c e p te d a ll o f

H u m a n L if

e ’s c o n s titu tio n a l th e o r ie s . T h e f a c tu a l b a s is f

o rH u m a n L if

e ’s a s - ap p lie dc h a lle n g e is to b e f o u n d , if a n y w h e r e , in H u m a n L if e ’s “v e r if ie dc o m p la in t” –its o n lye v id e n tia rys u b m is s io n . N otonl yi s the c om pl a i ntde voi d of i nf orm a t i on f

r om w hi c h w e c oul d c onc l ude thatthe D i sc l osure L aw i s uncon st i tut i on al as appl i ed t o H um an L i fe , i ti s notcl ear f r o m th e r e c o r d th a t th e c o m p la in t w a s v e r if ie db yaH u m a n L if

e o f f ic ia l w ith p e r s o n a l k n o w le d g e o f

th e f a c ts a lle g e dth e r e in . See C PL C–II, 507 F . 3d a t1176 ( e xpl a i ni ng tha tave r i f

i e d c om pl a i ntm a ys e rve a s a n a f f i da vi tf orpurpos e s of s u m m a ryju d g m e n t if

it is b a s e d o n p e r s o n a l k n o w le d g e a n ds e ts f o rth th e r e q u is ite fact s w i th sp eci fi ci ty). In so far as th ere i s an y ev i d en ce atal l t o su p p o rtan asappl i ed chal l enge, thatevi dence i s di sput ed gi ven the C om m i ss i on ’ s e vi dent i ary72

s ubm i s s i ons , w hi c h s how tha tH um a n L i f e a l r e a dyha s i n pl a c e m a nyof the o r g a n i z a t i o n a l f

e a tu r e s r e q u i r e d o f

p o l i t i c a l c o m m i tt e e s u n d e rth e Di s c l o s u r e L a w, a n d th a t th e r e p o rtin g r e q u ir e m e n ts im p o s e db yth e D is c lo s u r e L a w a r e q u ite m od es t . T he C om m i ss i on al so po i nt s outthati thas i n p l ac e procedures by w hi ch organi za t i on s m ayob t ai n g ui dance on thei r obl i gat i on s und erthe D i sc l osure L aw and thatH um an L i fe has notsoug htany a ss i st ance . A ny confl i ct s i n the evi dence as t o H um an L i fe ’ s a ct i vi t i es or the se veri ty of the bu rden i m po se d o n them p r e c lu d e s u m m a ryju d g m e n t in H u m a n L if e ’s f a v o r . See F e d. R . C i v. P . 56. I n e s s e nc e , H um a n L i f

e ’ s a s - appl i e d a r gum e ntgoe s t o the r e l i e f r e que s t e d: W e und er st and H um an L i fe ’ s posi t i on t o b e that , i f w e c on cl ud e thatthe D i sc l osure L a w is u n c o n s titu tio n a l o n its f a c e , th e n w e s h o u ldr e q u ir e th e d is tr ic t c o u rt to ent eran i nj un ct i on spec i fy i ng thati t s di sc l osure r equi re m ent s c anno tbe enforce d agai nstH um an L i fe or i t s propo se d adv ocac y a ct i vi t i es . B ec ause w e c on cl ud e that the D i s c l os ur e L a w i s c ons t i tut i ona l on i t s f a c e , w e de c l i ne t o do s o. CONCL US I ON In h i s fi rsti n au g u ral ad d ress, T h o m as Jefferso n arg u ed th ati n fo rm at i o n i s a p r e c o n d itio n f

o rp u b lic d e b a te , w h ic h , in tu rn , is ap r e c o n d itio n f o rd e m o c r a tic se l f- go vernance: “ T he di ff usi on of i nform at i on and the arra i gn m entof al l abuses a tthe ba rof

publ i c r e a s on, I de e m [ one of ] the e s s e nt i a l pr i nc i pl e s of our73

g o v e rn m e n t, a n d c o n s e q u e n tly[ o n e o f ] th o s e w h ic h o u g h t to s h ap e its a d m in is tr a tio n .” T h o m a s J e f f e r s o n , F ir s t I n au g u r a l A d d r e s s , 1 8 0 1 ; s e e al s o N i x on v . Sh r i n k Mo . Go v ’ t

PA C , 528 U . S . 377, 411 ( 2000) ( T hom a s , J . di s s e nt i ng) ( “ O ur F ou nd er s s ou gh tt o p rot ec tthe ri gh t s of i nd i vi du al s t o eng age i n p ol i t i ca l spee ch because ase l f- go verni ng peop l e depends up on the fr ee exchange of po l i t i ca l i nf orm a t i on. ” ) . C ons i s t e ntw i th J e f f e r s on’ s vi s i on, di s c l os ur e r e qui r e m e nt s ha ve b e c o m e a n im p o rta n t p a rt o f o u rF ir s t A m e n d m e n t tr a d itio n . Se e, e . g. , R ee d , 130 S . C t . a t2818; C i t i

ze ns U ni ted , 130 S . C t . a t908; H a rriss , 347 U . S . a t625. T he D i scl o su re L aw rep resen t s W ash i n g t o n i an s’ co n si d ered j u d g m en tth at“ fu l l access t o i nf orm a t i on c onc e rni ng the c onduc tof gove rnm e nton e ve ryl e ve l m us tbe as sure d as afund am ent al and n ec es saryprec on di t i on t o the soun d g ov ernance of a fr ee soci ety. ” W as h. R ev. C od e § 42 . 17 . 01 0(11 ). T here i s asubst ant i al r e l a t i ons hi p be tw e e n W a s hi ngt on S t a t e ’ s i nt e r e s ti n i nf orm i ng the e l e c t or a t e a nd th e d e f in itio n s a n d d is c lo s u r e r e q u ir e m e n ts it e m p lo y s to a d v a n c e th a t in te r e s t. A cco rd i n g l y, th e j u d g m en to f th e d i stri ctco u rti s AF F I RME D.74 C ou n se l J ohn J . W hi t e , J r . of

L i ve ngood, F i t z ge r a l d & A l s kog, P L L C ( K i rkl a nd, W A ) f or th e A p p e lla n t. Jam es B o p p , Jr. (arg u ed ), R i ch ard E . C o l eso n , Jeffrey P . G al l an t , an dC l ayt o n J. C a lle n o f B o p p , C o le s o n & B o s tr o m ( T e rr e H au te , I N ) f o rth e A p p e lla n t. R ob ertM . M cK enna, L i nd a A . D al t on , G ordo n P . K ar g, and N ancyJ. K ri er (argued) of the S t at e of W as hi ng t on (O l ym pi a, W A ) f or the A pp el l ee . J. G er al d H ebert , P aul S . R yan, and T ar a M al l oy of the C am pai gn L egal C ent er (W as hi ng t on , D C ) a s A m i cus C uri ae .