Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/13pdf/13-193_omq2.pdf
Page Number: 7

Cite as:  573 U. S. ____ (2014) 

5 

Opinion of the Court 

relevant  here,  the  amended  complaint  alleged  that  Ohio 
Rev.  Code  Ann.  §§3517.21(B)(9)  and  (10)  are  unconstitu-
tional  both  facially  and  as  applied.  Specifically,  the  com-
plaint alleged that SBA’s speech about Driehaus had been 
chilled;  that  SBA  “intends  to  engage  in  substantially 
similar  activity  in  the  future”;  and  that  it  “face[d]  the
prospect of its speech and associational rights again being 
chilled  and  burdened,”  because  “[a]ny  complainant  can 
hale [it] before the [Commission], forcing it to expend time
and resources defending itself.”  App. 121–122.

The District Court consolidated SBA’s suit with a sepa-
rate  suit  brought  by  petitioner  Coalition  Opposed  to  Ad- 
ditional  Spending  and  Taxes  (COAST),  an  advocacy  orga- 
nization  that  also  alleged  that  the  same  Ohio  false 
statement  provisions  are  unconstitutional  both  facially 
and  as  applied.3   According  to  its  amended  complaint,
COAST  intended  to  disseminate  a  mass  e-mail  and  other 
materials criticizing Driehaus’ vote for the ACA as a vote
“to  fund  abortions  with  tax  dollars,”  but  refrained  from 
doing  so  because  of  the  Commission  proceedings  against 
SBA.  Id., at 146, 148, 162.  COAST further alleged that it
“desires  to  make  the  same  or  similar  statements  about 
other federal candidates who voted for” the ACA, but that 
fear “of finding itself subject to the same fate” as SBA has
deterred it from doing so.  Id., at 149, 157.4 

—————— 

3 Petitioners  also  challenged  a  related  “disclaimer  provision,”  App.
126–127,  156–157,  under  Ohio  Rev.  Code  Ann.  §3517.20,  and  COAST
raised  pre-emption  and  due  process  claims.    Reply  Brief  21,  n. 7. 
Petitioners  do  not  pursue  their  “disclaimer,”  pre-emption,  or  due
process claims before us.  Ibid.  We also need not address SBA’s sepa-
rate  challenge  to  the  Commission’s  investigatory  procedures;  petition-
ers  have  conceded  that  the  procedures  claim  stands  or  falls  with  the
substantive prohibition on false statements.  Ibid.; see Tr. of Oral Arg.
19.  Finally,  the  parties  agree  that  petitioners’  as-applied  claims  “are
better read as facial objections to Ohio’s law.”  Reply Brief 19.  Accord-
ingly, we do not separately address the as-applied claims. 

4 SBA  named  Driehaus,  the  Commission’s  members  and  its  staff  at-