Opinion ID: 3050500
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Other Methods of Defining What Payments Must

Text: Be Disclosed Do Not Advance California’s Informational Interest. CPLC argues that California’s compelling interest only justifies the disclosure of those payments that are expressly “made for political purposes for which full and adequate consideration is not made to the donor[,]” CCR § 18215(a). California counters that: By simply discouraging donors from earmarking their donations for expenditures on express cam- paign advocacy or by commingling earmarked con- 15 Our earlier discussion of California’s compelling interest explains why the regulation is necessary to meet the governmental interest in disclosing the sources of political speech to the voting public. CALIFORNIA PRO-LIFE COUNCIL v. RANDOLPH 14819 tributions with other funds, any multi-purpose group could escape classification as a ‘recipient committee’ under [CGC] section 82013(a), and thereby avoid the duty to disclose its contributors regardless of the size of the contribution or the level of its political activity. [10] Supreme Court precedent supports a definition of “contribution” broader than that advocated by CPLC. In MCFL, 479 U.S. at 241, 252, 262, the Court upheld the disclosure requirements in 2 U.S.C. § 434(c). In that statute, “contribution” was defined as “any gift . . . or anything of value made by any person for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office[.]” 2 U.S.C. § 431(8)(A)(I) (emphasis added). The Court did not question the constitutionality of these disclosure provisions, i.e., what is meant by “to influence elections” or when the corporation will know that there is a “contribution.” The fact that California has more explicitly defined “contribution” does not weaken its legislation. Cf. Garza v. County of Los Angeles, 918 F.2d 763, 772 (9th Cir. 1990) (noting that “while more frequent apportionment was not constitutionally required, it would be constitutionally permissible, and even practically desirable[ ]”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In addition to a pure earmarking system, California considered “the system applicable to PACs, under which all receipts are reported as contributions[.]” California noted that such a system is “more restrictive and more burdensome than the current reporting requirements of the PRA.” Consideration of alternatives and selection of a less burdensome alternative that furthers California’s compelling interest supports a conclusion of narrow tailoring. Cf. Kuba, 387 F.3d at 862 n.12 (considering alternatives in assessing narrow tailoring).