Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/13pdf/13-193_omq2.pdf
Page Number: 14

12 

SUSAN B. ANTHONY LIST v. DRIEHAUS 

Opinion of the Court 

political  speech,  it  is  certainly  “affected  with  a  constitu-
tional  interest.”  Babbitt,  supra,  at  298;  see  also  Monitor 
Patriot Co. v. Roy, 401 U. S. 265, 272 (1971) (“[T]he consti-
tutional guarantee has its fullest and most urgent applica-
tion  precisely  to  the  conduct  of  campaigns  for  political 
office”). 

B 
Next,  petitioners’  intended  future  conduct  is  “argua-
bly. . . proscribed by [the] statute” they wish to challenge. 
Babbitt,  supra,  at  298.    The  Ohio  false  statement  law 
sweeps  broadly,  see  supra,  at  1–2,  and  n. 1.,  and  covers 
the  subject  matter  of  petitioners’  intended  speech.    Both 
SBA  and  COAST  have  alleged  an  intent  to  “[m]ake” 
statements “concerning the voting record of a candidate or
public  official,”  §3517.21(B)(9),  and  to  “disseminate” 
statements  “concerning  a  candidate  . . .  to  promote  the
the  candidate,” 
election,  nomination,  or  defeat  of 
§3517.21(B)(10).  And,  a  Commission  panel  here  already 
found  probable  cause  to  believe  that  SBA  violated  the 
statute  when  it  stated  that  Driehaus  had  supported 
“taxpayer-funded  abortion”—the  same  sort  of  statement
petitioners plan to disseminate in the future.  Under these 
circumstances, we have no difficulty concluding that peti-
tioners’  intended  speech  is  “arguably  proscribed”  by  the 
law. 

Respondents incorrectly rely on Golden v. Zwickler, 394 
U. S. 103 (1969).  In that case, the plaintiff had previously 
distributed  anonymous  leaflets  criticizing  a  particular
Congressman  who  had  since  left  office.    Id.,  at  104–106, 
and n. 2.  The Court dismissed the plaintiff ’s challenge to
the  electoral  leafletting  ban  as  nonjusticiable  because  his
“sole  concern  was  literature  relating  to  the  Congressman
and  his  record,”  and  “it  was  most  unlikely  that  the  Con-
gressman  would  again  be  a  candidate.”  Id.,  at  109  (em-
phasis  added).  Under  those  circumstances,  any  threat  of