Document: 128 S. Ct. 2759 (2008) Jack DAVIS, Appellant, v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION. No. 07-320. Supreme Court of United States. Argued April 22, 2008. Decided June 26, *2765 Andrew D. Herman, for Appellant. Paul Clement, Appellee. Thomasenia P. Duncan, David Kolker, Associate General Counsel, Kevin Deeley, Assistant Holly J. Baker, Claire N. Rajan, Washington, D.C., Gregory G. Garre, Deputy Solicitor General, Malcolm L. Stewart, to the Stanley M. Brand, Brand Law Group, PC, Elizabeth F. Getman, Sandler, Reiff & Young, P.C., DC, Justice ALITO delivered opinion in which STEVENS, SOUTER, GINSBURG, and BREYER joined as Part II. In this appeal, we consider constitutionality federal election law provisions that, under certain circumstances, impose different campaign contribution limits on candidates competing same congressional seat. I A Federal amount money that a candidate House Representatives candidate's authorized committee may receive from an individual, well party devote coordinated expenditures. 2 U.S.C. § 441a (2006 ed.).[1] Under usual restrictions apply all competitors seat their committees. Contributions individual donors during 2-year cycle are subject cap, is currently set at $2,300. See *2766 §§ 441a(a)(1)(A), (c); 72 Fed.Reg. 5295 (2007). addition, no funds be accepted whose aggregate contributions committees have reached legal limit, $42,700. 441a(a)(3)(A), Fed. Reg. 5295. also not accept general expenditures by national or state political exceed imposed limit. 441a(c), (d). Currently, limit States with more than one $40,900. 5294.[2] Section 319(a) Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act 2002 (BCRA), 116 Stat. 109, 441a-1(a),[3] part so-called "Millionaire's Amendment," fundamentally alters scheme when, result expenditure personal funds, "opposition amount" (OPFA) exceeds $350,000.[4] The OPFA, simple terms, statistic compares takes into account some degree other fundraising.[5] 441a-1(a). When causes OPFA pass $350,000 mark (for convenience, such will referred "self-financing"), new, asymmetrical regulatory comes play. self-financing remains limitations noted above, but opponent (the "non-self-financing" candidate) treble normal (e.g., $6,900 rather current $2,300), even individuals who without 441a-1(a)(1)(A)-(C). Once non-self-financing receipts prior revived. 441a-1(a)(3). does spend received must return them. 441a-1(a)(4). order calculate information needed about assets 319(b) thus requires make three types disclosures. First, within 15 days after entering race, file "[d]eclaration intent" revealing intends excess $350,000. 441a-1(b)(1)(B). intend cross threshold simply declare intent funds. 11 CFR 400.20(a)(2) (2008). Second, 24 hours crossing becoming obligated mark, "[i]nitial notification." 441a-1(b)(1)(C). *2767 Third, "[a]dditional notification" making each additional $10,000 using 441a-1(b)(1)(D). initial notifications provide date filed Election Commission (FEC), seat, parties those candidates. 441a-1(b)(1)(E). Failure comply reporting requirements civil criminal penalties. 437g(a)(5)-(6), (d)(1). face less extensive disclosure requirements. Within receiving "initial" "additional" notification opponent, notice FEC if concludes based newly acquired has passed mark. 400.30(b)(2). when pursuant equals notify appropriate hours. 400.31(e)(1)(ii). regarding any refunds "excess funds" (funds increased used campaign). 400.50, 400.54. For part, they support 400.30(c)(2). B Appellant Davis was Democratic New York's 26th Congressional District 2004 2006. both elections, he lost incumbent. his brief, discloses having spent $1.2 million, principally own campaign. Brief 4. He reports spending $2.3 million 2006, $126,000 came Id., 13. His 2006 Indeed, although calculation provided opportunity Davis' raise nearly $1.5 319(a)'s limits, adhered limits. candidacy began March "Statement Candidacy" and, compliance 319(b), declared intended $1 election. Two months later, anticipation its 319 consequences, suit against FEC, requesting unconstitutional enjoined enforcing it After before suit, FEC's counsel notified him had reason believe violated failing report proposed conciliation agreement would pay substantial penalty. responded agreeing toll period enforcement action until resolution suit. Columbia, three-judge panel convened. BCRA 403, 113, *2768 note following 437h. While requested case decided September 12, opposed request, asserting need discovery, request denied. Ultimately, cross-motions summary judgment. Ruling motions, addressing standing sua sponte. concluded standing, rejected claims merits granted judgment FEC. 501 Supp. 2d 22 then invoked BCRA's exclusive avenue appellate review  direct appeal Court. Note We deferred full consideration our jurisdiction, 552 U.S. ___, 976, 169 Ed. 800 (2008), now reverse. II Like Court, first ensure jurisdiction hear appeal. Article III restricts courts cases controversies. Arizonans Official English Arizona, 520 43, 64, 117 1055, 137 170 (1997). That restriction invoking "personal interest exist commencement litigation." Friends Earth, Inc. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc., 528 167, 189, 120 693, 145 610 (2000) (internal quotation marks omitted). But enough requisite outset. "To qualify fit federal-court adjudication, `an actual controversy extant stages review, merely time complaint filed.'" English, supra, 67, 1055. argues fails present constitutional because lacks moot. address these issues turn. As noted, requirement claimant "standing essential unchanging case-or-controversy III." Lujan Defenders Wildlife, 504 555, 560, 112 2130, 119 351 (1992); see To injury concrete, particularized, imminent; fairly traceable defendant's challenged behavior; likely redressed favorable ruling. Lujan, 560-561, 2130. held, do dispute, possesses challenge 319(b). already been forced disclose At time, faced imminent threat follow up further fact Securing declaration 319(b)'s injunction spared relief removed real pursue alleged violations result, requirement. necessarily mean *2769 applies "[S]tanding dispensed gross." Lewis Casey, 518 343, 358, n. 6, 2174, 135 606 (1996). Rather, "a plaintiff demonstrate claim seeks press" "`for form relief'" sought. DaimlerChrysler Corp. Cuno, 547 332, 352, 126 1854, 164 589 (2006) (quoting 185, 693). light principles, attack commenced action, yet qualified did take advantage chose so. Accordingly, cause injury. proof required establish increases proceeds, 561, inquiry focused whether stake outcome filed. 180, 693; 68, actualized. facing prospective sue where threatened real, immediate, direct. Los Angeles Lyons, 461 95, 102, 103 1660, 75 675 (1983); Babbitt Farm Workers, 442 289, 298, 99 2301, 60 895 (1979) (A operation statute presents realistic impending injury). onset rapidly approaching. shortly burden allowing there indication forgo opportunity. record indicated most expanded done App. 89. conclude provision's scheme. mootness argument fails. This closely resembles Comm'n Wisconsin Right Life, 551 127 2652, 168 329 There, Life (WRTL), nonprofit, ideological advocacy corporation, wished run radio TV ads 30 Washington primary, contrary BCRA. WRTL sued seeking declaratory injunctive relief. Although resolved election, mootness, finding "fit comfortably established exception disputes capable repetition, evading review." S.Ct., 2662. "exception `(1) duration too short fully litigated cessation expiration; (2) reasonable expectation complaining again.'" Ibid. Spencer Kemna, 523 1, 17, 118 978, 140 43 (1998)). *2770 WRTL, "despite command cas[e] expedited `to greatest possible extent,'" WRTL's could reasonably concluded. U.S., 2662 403(a)(4), 437h). Similarly, despite mandate expedite season commenced, concluded, demonstrating review. second prong exception, though raised as-applied challenge, found repetition "WRTL credibly claimed planned running `materially similar' future" prohibition had, fact, sought permit ad 2663 (some internal Here, conceded brief self-finance another bid Appellee 14, 20-21, 5. subsequently made public statement expressing Reply 16 (citing Terreri, Democrat Confirms He'll Run Again Congress, Rochester Chronicle, Mar. 27, 2008, p. 5B). satisfied facial moot.[6] turn First Amendment scheme, previously spends creates what apparently regards financial imbalance, larger otherwise allowed unlimited contends unconstitutionally burdens exercise right create imbalance effect enabling use finance speech counteracts diminishes effectiveness speech. If candidates, plainly fail. sustained discrete Buckley Valeo, 424 23-35, 38, 46-47, 53, 96 612, 46 659 (1976) (per curiam); Colorado Republican Comm., 533 431, 437, 465, 121 2351, 150 (2001) (Colorado II). recognized implicate interests cannot stand unless "closely drawn" serve "sufficiently important interest," preventing corruption appearance corruption. See, e.g., McConnell Comm'n, 540 93, 136, 138, 40, 124 619, 157 491 (2003); II, 456, 2351; Nixon Shrink Missouri Government PAC, 377, 387-388, *2771 897, 886 (2000); Buckley, 25-30, 612. restrictive, extended measure deference legislative body enacted law. Randall Sorrell, 548 230, 248, 2479, 165 482 (plurality opinion); Nixon, 396-397, 897; 30, 111, 103-104, held low stand. Randall, 246-262, 2479; id., 263, 2479 (ALITO, J., concurring judgment). There is, however, basis attacking ground high. Congress obligation all; undue risk corruption, wishes restrict opponent's fundraising argue Constitution demands regulated strictly. Consequently, elevated applied across board, challenging 319(a), board. raises only so exceeded. never upheld imposes other, agree impermissibly soundly cap "candidate . engage discussion vigorously tirelessly advocate election" substantial," "clea[r]" "direc[t]" restraint right. 52-53, issue justified "[t]he primary governmental interest" proffered defense, i.e., "the prevention apparent process." Far evils, funds," observed, "reduces dependence outside thereby coercive pressures attendant risks abuse directed." served ancillary equalizing relative resources elective office." 54, putative interest, "clearly sufficient justify infringement fundamental rights." Buckley's emphasis nature instructive. unprecedented penalty robustly exercises choose between unfettered subjection discriminatory limitations. *2772 Many can afford large campaigns shoulder special potentially significant choice. Day Holahan, 34 F.3d 1356, 1359-1360 (C.A.8 1994) (concluding Minnesota eligibility independent her burdened expenditures); 29 (conceding "[§]319 consequences choice beyond amounts"). vigorous produces advantages opponents competitive context electoral politics. Cf. Pacific Gas Elec. Co. Public Util. Cal., 475 106 903, 89 1 (1986) opinion) (finding rights spoke "be help disseminate hostile views"). resulting drag attaches consequence statutorily "may financing condition acceptance abide specified limitations" overall unconstitutional. 57, 65, 612; 54-58, involved quite 319(a). candidate, forgoing financing, retain way abridgment. Instead, two choices: endure placed activation remotely parallel Buckley. Because speech, provision "justified compelling Massachusetts Citizens 479 238, 256, 107 616, 93 539 (1986); also, McConnell, 205, 619; Austin Michigan Chamber Commerce, 494 652, 657-658, 110 1391, 108 652 (1990); 680, 1391 (SCALIA, dissenting); 701, 702-703, (KENNEDY, National Conservative Political Action 470 480, 500-501, 105 1459, 84 455 (1985); Nat. Bank Boston Bellotti, 435 765, 786, 98 1407, 55 707 (1978); Comm. 604, 609, 2309, 795 (1996) (principal I); 640-641, 2309 (THOMAS, dissenting part). No justification here.[7] *2773 eliminating perception reasoned reliance reduces therefore discouraging disserves anticorruption interest. given Congress' liberalized unduly imperil interests, hard imagine how denial regarded serving goals sufficiently burden. maintains "level opportunities wealth." 34. "Congress 319," writes, "to reduce natural wealthy possess 33 (emphasis added). Our decisions, proposition legitimate government objective. 428, 897 dissenting) ("`[P]reventing far identified restricting finances'" 496-497, 1459)); 268, judgment) (noting compelling, thereof"). On contrary, candidates" "justification restricting" candidates' expenditures, particularly equalization "might handicap lacked name recognition exposure views start campaign." 56-57, similarly "in ability groups influence elections" "express defeat candidates," concept elements society enhance voice others wholly foreign Amendment." 48-49, 227, 619 (noting, assessing process). Austin, 705, (rejecting "antithetical Amendment" notion quantity equalize speakers elections"). restricted opportunities" ominous implications arrogate voters' authority evaluate strengths office. 791-792, 1407 ("[T]he people democracy entrusted responsibility judging evaluating *2774 conflicting arguments" consider, judgment, source credibility advocate"). Different strengths. Some wealthy; supporters willing contributions. celebrities; benefit well-known family name. Leveling means implementing judgments should permitted contribute Constitution, confers upon voters, power Members Representatives, Art. I, 2, dangerous business laws choices. 791, 31, (The "[g]overnment forbidden assume task ultimate lest lose govern themselves"). Finally, ameliorates deleterious effects tight places These argued, harder seen, effort interfere process, mitigate untoward handiwork restore relationship level popular candidacy." 33. Whatever original matter, war analysis adopted subsequent cases. enjoy flows directly disparate treatment approach soundand urge us hold otherwise[8]it undoing decision viewed normally applicable seriously distorting feeding "public buy seats Congress," 34, combat obvious remedy eliminate step imposing vying antithetical Amendment. IV remaining "[W]e repeatedly compelled disclosure, itself, infringe *2775 privacy association belief guaranteed scrutinized requirements, including governing individuals' 75, survive scrutiny, encroachments "cannot mere showing interest." `relevant correlation' `substantial relation' disclosed," "must exacting scrutiny." (footnotes strength reflect seriousness rights. 71, were designed implement discussed violates holding, justified, follows unconstitutional.[9] * sum, (b) violate reversed, remanded proceedings consistent opinion. It ordered. APPENDIX provides: "(a) Availability "(1) "Subject paragraph (3), opposition respect office Representative in, Delegate Resident Commissioner to, $350,000 "(A) subsection (a)(1)(A) shall tripled; "(B) (a)(3) subparagraph (A) contribution; "(C) (d) State behalf apply. "(2) Determination "The equal (if any) of "(i) (as defined (b)(1) section) opposing makes; over "(ii) Special rule *2776 "For purposes determining (A), include gross committee. Gross clause (i), term "gross advantage" excess, any, "(I) 50 percent (not expended connection determined December 31 year preceding "(II) held. "(3) Time (B), contribution, expenditure, (1) section; extent added cycle, 100 amount. Effect withdrawal "A ceases attributable candidate. "(4) Disposal (1) relate shall, later manner described (B). Return contributors person contribution." "(b) Notification Definition paragraph, "expenditure means funds; loan *2777 secured Declaration "Not becomes stating total make, obligate Initial (B) makes obligates notification. "(D) Additional "After files (C), $10,000. Such made. "(E) Contents (C) (D) include candidate; expenditure; "(iii) made, "(F) Place filing "Each (D), (E) with Commission; disposal "In next regularly scheduled nomination office, submit indicating (a) Enforcement providing subsection, section 437g title." 441a-1 whom join part. ed.), product able rely *2778 campaigns. advantage, sale highest bidder, relaxed self-funding supporters. thorough well-reasoned opinion, Millionaire's whatsoever freedom speak, Amendment, diminish unequal protection component Fifth completely Court's specifically adherence (2003). affirm reasons add comments premise underlies limitations, my concluding represents modest, sensible, attempt minimize enjoyed vis-á-vis fund pursuit According 18, curiam), vice condemns "impose restrictions" speech.[1] limitation spend, expression number discussed, depth exploration, size audience reached." 19, regulation ought itself. White firmly disagreed holding explaining regulations analyzed, akin place, regulations, "so long substantial." 264, 612 (opinion participate since persuaded Whitewho maintained steadfast view see, 507-512, (1985) (dissenting opinion)was correct. represented break 65 years practice, probable departure Framers relevant 274, 280-281, (STEVENS, dissenting). *2779 view, purposes, substantial, imposition course single one, "free staffs interminable fundraising." 649, Moreover, salutary improving quality exposition ideas. all, orderly debate always enlightening shouting match awards points decibels reasons. Quantity commonplace contexts high-value occurs. Litigants pressing utmost importance Nation fixed oral maximum pages written argument. listeners readers, judges issue; repetitious arguments disfavored usually especially unpersuasive. experts art "lawyers go long, doesn't case."[2] seems me entitled voters deserve courtesy judges; flooding airwaves slogans sound-bites obscure enlighten listeners. least rules limiting just offensive content incorrect.[3] If, come believe, millionaire fortiori eminently today survives scrutiny. Even accepting uniquely incompatible firm conviction good-faith regulate, bounds pernicious feature many contemporary campaigns.[4] gainsaid twin rationales heart Amendmentreducing wealth criterion countering available *2780 purchase wealthiest bidderare interests. evident enacting provision, crafted solution carefully tailored concerns. insists, Government's insufficiently weighty believes intrusions regardless justifications offered, concerns identified. unpersuasive counts. thrust relaxing punishes chooses self-fund. Extrapolating zero-sum insists conferred self-funder's works detriment argues, speak freely process. show himor candidateany whatsoever. quiets all. assist attempts heard; amplification mutes millionaire, loud likes Enhancing millionaire's contravening actually advances core principles. himself heard, voter's informed impaired.[5] And meaningfully process undermined provision.[6] credit rights, surely effects. wrong suggests "governmental corruption," ante, 2773, sole regulations. 2773-2774. true, course, upholding 1971's (FECA) campaigns, weight freedoms resulted FECA's *2781 limits; explained "[t]o secure quid pro quo potential holders, integrity system representative undermined. Of almost concern impact stemming awareness inherent regime contributions." 26-27, true insufficient 45-46, 52-56, combating financing. reducing outcomes alone dictates results. case, statutes protect aggregations process responsive evildo contravene 660, (1990) (upholding corrosive immense accumulated corporate little correlation public's corporation's ideas"); 257, ("Th[e] concentrated reflects marketplace Direct activity prospect amassed economic unfair marketplace"); cf. Red Lion Broadcasting FCC, 395 367, 390, 1794, 23 371 (1969) several components FCC's "fair coverage" "[i]t purpose preserve uninhibited ideas truth ultimately prevail, countenance monopolization market"). focus wealth, logicspecifically, processis equally wealth. For, "Congress' historical `political potentialities wealth' `untoward democratic process'. money," 116, Automobile 352 567, 577-578, 77 529, 563 (1957)). Minimizing concomitant dangers attend purchased, are, therefore, objectives action. And, motivated proper crafting details devised genuinely problems statute's "Opposition Personal Funds Amount" formula permits much wishes, while *2782 taking campaigns; ensures happens reap windfall enhanced avail parity achieved, point again ineligible above maximum. uncontroversial "there good allow disparities translated power. well-functioning distinguishes market processes hand voting reason-giving other." Sunstein, Equality Unintended Consequences, 94 Colum. L.Rev. 1390 (1994). clear truth, distinct offend argument, finds unnecessary address, 2775, 9, fares better. permitting unwarranted disparity self-funder opponent. But, real-world differences regulation." 188, 619. itself acknowledged, require treat same." 97, blinks reality contend situated identically nonmillionaire indulge fiction. failed deprived guarantees share Judge Wright's nothing "prevents us, community, modest changes kind want selecting leaders," Wright, Politics Constitution: Is Money Speech? 85 Yale L.J. 1001, 1005 (1976). change. respectfully dissent. joins, Agreeing appellant moot, merits, ways careful persuasive it, correctly entirely decisions STEVENS' resist joining portions distinction correspondingly, "direct communication," *2783 asked overrule Buckley; consequently, briefed. Convinced encounters shoal precedents, leave reconsideration day case. NOTES [1] All undesignated references edition. [2] adjusted inflation every years. 441a(c). [3] out Appendix refer 315A(a) 1971, convention reference (b). [4] 304 regulates self-financed Senate bids. 441a(i). [5] calculated follows. 50% measured designated dates figures compared, difference greater $350,000, effect. 441a-1(a)(1), (2). [6] conclusion, decide keep alive. [7] characterized doubtful survive. involving "`"significant interference" associational rights'" "`"closely drawn"'" "`sufficiently interest.'" infra, 2773-2774, chief schemeleveling opportunitiescannot [8] STEVENS revisit reject Post, ___-___ urged step, event, proposal unsound. improve regulate asserted suppose desired [9] Amendment's Due Process Clause. invalidated expenditures: resources" campaign, 51-54, 54-60, mistaken striking down provisions; them together here. Brust, Voice Write: Tips Making Your Case From Supremely Reliable Source, A.B.A.J. 37 (May 2008) (interview SCALIA Bryan Garner). correct "it speech." Ante, 8. themselves "core speech"; enable nauseam). "provides protection" 398, concurring). outset discussion, conclusion (b), moot; republic sovereign, citizenry choices among essential, identities elected inevitably shape nation." 14-15, curiam). retains structure campaign's funding pleases: still limited donations supporters; alternatively, alone, neither event engagement sense impeded.

Category: 2