Opinion ID: 2745897
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: analysis

Text: Citizen United’s complaint in federal court attacks the Colorado disclosure exemptions for print and broadcast media. It argues that because the exemptions discriminate among speakers on the basis of identity, the Colorado constitutional and statutory disclosure provisions are facially invalid under the First Amendment and must be voided. In the alternative, it argues that those provisions are unconstitutional as applied to Citizens United and it must be provided the same exemptions as the print and broadcast media.
In determining whether to grant a preliminary injunction, a court must weigh (1) the likelihood that the movant will succeed on the merits; (2) the threat of irreparable harm to the movant; (3) the relative weight of the harm alleged by the movant and the harm to the nonmoving party; and (4) the public interest. See Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, 723 F.3d 1114, 1128 (10th Cir. 2013), aff’d sub nom. Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2751 (2014). Our review of a district-court denial of a preliminary injunction is for abuse of discretion. See id. But “we examine the district court’s legal determinations de novo, and its underlying factual findings for clear error,” 16 Att’y Gen. of Okla. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 565 F.3d 769, 776 (10th Cir. 2009), and “[a] district court abuses its discretion by denying a preliminary injunction based on an error of law,” Hobby Lobby, 723 F.3d at 1128. We begin (and, in essence, end) our review by analyzing Citizens United’s likelihood of success on the merits.
We agree with Citizens United’s as-applied challenge to Colorado’s campaigndisclosure requirements. On the record before us, we hold that the First Amendment requires the Secretary to treat Citizens United the same as the exempted media. We need not address Citizen United’s facial challenge, which would provide all speakers with the same exemptions provided to the exempt media, because a ruling of facial invalidity would not grant Citizens United any additional relief. See United States v. Nat’l Treasury Emps. Union, 513 U.S. 454, 477–78 (1995) (“[A]lthough the occasional case requires us to entertain a facial challenge in order to vindicate a party’s right not to be bound by an unconstitutional statute, we neither want nor need to provide relief to nonparties when a narrower remedy will fully protect the litigants.” (citation omitted)). In assessing the constitutionality of Colorado’s disclosure requirements, we consider whether they satisfy exacting scrutiny. This is the standard generally applied to such requirements. See, e.g., Doe v. Reed, 561 U.S. 186, 196 (2010) (“We have a series of precedents considering First Amendment challenges to disclosure requirements in the electoral context. These precedents have reviewed such challenges under what has been termed ‘exacting scrutiny.’”); Citizens United v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 558 U.S. 310, 17 366 (2010) (“The Court has subjected [disclaimer and disclosure] requirements to exacting scrutiny” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Davis v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 554 U.S. 724, 744 (2008) (governmental interest in disclosure requirements “must survive exacting scrutiny” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 64 (1976) (“Since NAACP v. Alabama [357 U.S. 449 (1958),] we have required that the subordinating interests of the State [in compelled disclosure] survive exacting scrutiny.”); Sampson v. Buescher, 625 F.3d 1247, 1254‒61 (10th Cir. 2010) (under exacting-scrutiny review, Colorado disclosure requirements were unconstitutional as applied to a neighborhood organization opposing ballot measure to annex the neighborhood to adjacent town). For the law to pass muster there must be “a substantial relation between the disclosure requirement and a sufficiently important governmental interest.” Citizens United, 558 U.S. at 366–67 (internal quotation marks omitted). “That is, the strength of the governmental interest must reflect the seriousness of the actual burden on First Amendment rights.” Reed, 561 U.S. at 196 (internal quotation marks omitted). Although Citizens United contends that we should apply the more stringent standard of strict scrutiny because Colorado law discriminates against speech based on the identity of the speaker, we need not address this contention because Citizens United’s challenge prevails under the exacting-scrutiny standard. Our analysis proceeds as follows: First, we discuss the purpose of disclosures relating to electioneering communications and independent expenditures (those not coordinated with a candidate). We agree with the Secretary that they serve the purpose of 18 providing the electorate with information about the source of election-related spending. In light of the Supreme Court’s analysis in Citizens United, however, we do not agree that they play a role in deterring or exposing campaign corruption. Next, we address the justifications for the media exemptions under Colorado law. We reject the Secretary’s contention that the media exemptions can be justified on the ground that the First Amendment provides greater protection for the press than other speakers. The Supreme Court rejected that proposition in Citizens United. And we reject the suggestion in the Secretary’s brief that the exemption is justified by the professionalism and objectivity of the press. But we accept the Secretary’s contention that the exemptions are justified on the ground that familiarity with the media sufficiently enables the electorate to evaluate reports and opinions in the media. This justification, however, amounts to saying that Colorado has no sufficiently important governmental interest in disclosure by the exempted media because the electorate can adequately evaluate their articles and opinions anyway. That being the case, Colorado likewise has no sufficiently important governmental interest in requiring those same disclosures by Citizens United, which— through its history of producing films—can just as easily be evaluated by the electorate.
The Secretary’s brief states: “Colorado’s disclosure laws are narrowly tailored to serve two compelling government interests—ensuring that Colorado’s electors are able to discern who is attempting to influence their votes, and discouraging corruption by making large independent expenditures a matter of public record.” Aplee. Br. at 16. We 19 agree in part. In Citizens United the Supreme Court recognized that disclosures related to independent expenditures can “help citizens make informed choices in the political marketplace.” 558 U.S. at 368 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also First Nat’l Bank of Bos. v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765, 792 n.32 (1978) (“Identification of the source of advertising may be required as a means of disclosure, so that the people will be able to evaluate the arguments to which they are being subjected.”). Colorado can rely on this informational interest for its disclosure scheme. We reject, however, the Secretary’s assertion of an anticorruption rationale for reporting independent expenditures. The Secretary cites Supreme Court authority for the proposition, such as McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, 134 S. Ct. 1434, 1459 (2014) (disclosure requirements may “deter actual corruption and avoid the appearance of corruption by exposing large contributions and expenditures to the light of publicity”), and Buckley, 424 U.S. at 67 (“[D]isclosure requirements deter actual corruption and avoid the appearance of corruption by exposing large contributions and expenditures to the light of publicity. This exposure may discourage those who would use money for improper purposes either before or after the election.” (footnote omitted)). But those statements were made in the course of consideration of disclosure requirements that applied to much more than just independent expenditures—in particular, disclosure of direct contributions to candidates. The Court’s present doctrine sharply distinguishes contributions to candidates or expenditures coordinated with candidates from independent expenditures free of any such coordination. It recognizes that expenditures 20 and contributions that are not independent present a risk of quid pro quo corruption. See Citizens United, 310 U.S. at 356‒57. But the Court has emphatically stated that independent expenditures are not tied to corruption: “[W]e now conclude that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.” Id. at 357. “The absence of prearrangement and coordination of an expenditure with the candidate or his agent not only undermines the value of the expenditure to the candidate, but also alleviates the danger that expenditures will be given as a quid pro quo for improper commitments from the candidate.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). The Court noted that the voluminous record in McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, 251 F. Supp. 2d 176, 209 (D.D.C. 2003), aff’d in part, rev’d in part, 540 U.S. 93 (2003), did not contain any examples of votes by elected officials being exchanged for expenditures. See Citizens United, 558 U.S. at 360. In light of what the Supreme Court has said, the Secretary must explain (and support with evidence) how disclosures of independent expenditures would help deter or disclose the quid pro quo corruption of concern to the Court. This he has failed to do.
Given the governmental interest in disclosure, why are the media exempted, at least in part? Because the justification for the exemptions concerns the specifics of the Colorado disclosure laws, not press exemptions in the abstract, a brief review of the disclosure requirements and exemptions is useful. First, the disclosure requirements are not 21 expansive. Although electioneering communications (statements that mention Colorado candidates) and expenditures (to support or oppose Colorado candidates) must be reported, the requirements to disclose the financial backers of organizations (such as corporations) that make electioneering communications or independent expenditures are limited. Donors to the general funding of the organization need not be disclosed. The only donors who must be disclosed (by name and occupation) are those who earmark contributions for the specific, exclusive purpose of electioneering communications or expenditures regarding Colorado candidates. As for the media exemptions, no reporting is required for any news or opinion piece (not including advertising) appearing in a printed periodical. The exemption extends to letters to the editor and op-eds, regardless of whether the letters or op-eds have been instigated or funded by an organization. And the “printed” press includes online newspapers and blogs, regardless of the ideological bias of the newspaper or blog. Opinions (again, other than advertisements) aired by a broadcast facility (including cable) are also exempt. Although news reports by broadcast media are not explicitly exempted, the Secretary apparently treats them the same as news reports in the print media. So how does the Secretary explain the media exemptions? Two of the Secretary’s proffered justifications can be disposed of summarily. First, the Secretary says that “‘a valid distinction exists between corporations that are part of the media industry and other corporations that are not involved in the regular business of imparting news to the public.’” Aplee. Br. at 41 (brackets omitted) (quoting McConnell, 540 U.S. at 208, which 22 was overruled by Citizens United on that point). That reason, at least as a constitutional proposition, can no longer stand after Citizens United. The Supreme Court wrote: “There is no precedent supporting laws that attempt to distinguish between corporations which are deemed to be exempt as media corporations and those which are not. We have consistently rejected the proposition that the institutional press has any constitutional privilege beyond that of other speakers.” Citizens United, 558 U.S. at 352 (emphasis added, internal quotation marks omitted). This is not to say that a statute can never properly distinguish the news media from other speakers. But that distinction has no basis in the First Amendment and cannot immunize differential treatment from a First Amendment challenge; a difference in treatment would have to be defended on other grounds. Second, the Secretary’s brief contends that “whereas journalism seeks to inform or educate the public and expose ideas at regular intervals in a transparent, balanced, and accountable manner, drop-in political advertisements appeal to the emotions of viewers or readers with the goal of pure persuasion.” Aplee. Br. at 38. One can hope that transparency, balance, and accountability are ideals of “journalism” as a profession. But it is a highly questionable proposition that newspapers and broadcast stations (to say nothing of blogs) are uniformly transparent, balanced, and accountable. Our nation’s founding and history are replete with examples of highly partisan newspapers, and many observers would say that some modern media continue the tradition. In any event, the Secretary in effect abandoned this contention at oral argument, stating that partisanship is 23 not a factor in determining whether the Colorado media exemptions apply. Speaking of blogs, he said: “[I]t doesn’t matter whether they take an ideological point of view. The whole blog could be devoted and many are to promoting the Republicans, promoting the Democrats, the Green Party, the Libertarians, whoever. That’s not the issue. It’s not the viewpoint or the content that makes a difference.” Oral Arg. 23:02‒23:17. The abandonment of the “transparent, balanced, and accountable” contention was welladvised. Cf. San Juan Cnty. v. No New Gas Tax, 157 P.3d 831, 841 (Wash. 2007) (“We agree with the Federal Election Commission that for the media exemption to apply, the publication need not be fair, balanced, or avoid express advocacy or solicitations.”). The third justification, expressed in a variety of ways in the Secretary’s brief, is that the electorate can properly assess a statement by the exempted media because of its familiarity with the source. The brief states: [T]he exemption of some communications and the inclusion of others represents a policy choice not about the viewpoints expressed in those communications, but about the heuristic cues that a viewer or reader may be able to glean from the medium of expression. Simply put, in adopting Amendment 27 [to the Colorado Constitution], Colorado’s citizens determined that voters should be armed with the ability to find out who is attempting to influence their votes. Communications that qualify for the press exemption are not included because such information is often easily discernible from the communication itself. Aplee. Br. at 22. Later the brief makes the same point: “[T]he line drawn by Colorado’s press exemption centers on an audience member’s ability to evaluate the credibility of a particular message to determine the weight that it should be given.” Id. at 38. 24 The brief distinguishes the media from single-shot speakers who have no track record and can use a misleading name (say, Voters for a Better World) to make assessment of their purposes difficult, if not impossible. In contrast to communications by the exempted media, asserts the brief, “isolated instances of anonymous express advocacy leave voters adrift, without the context necessary to appropriately evaluate the message.” Id. at 34. The point is repeated several times later in the brief: [U]nlike advocacy groups such as Citizens United—which often engage in drop-in advocacy like a standalone film, a single election mailer, or an anonymous website[—]organizations engaging in traditional press functions publish at regular intervals, which, in turn, provide electors with a context for evaluating any given message. Id. at 40. Unlike political advocacy groups, whose names often do not provide any useful cue or meaningful information to help a voter evaluate . . . that message, communications that qualify for the press exemption generally provide viewers with various means for determining who is speaking and, therefore, what weight to give the message. Id. at 42 (brackets, citations, and internal quotation marks omitted). [A]udiences can assess the accuracy of a newspaper’s reporting by looking at its practices over time, or determine what weight to give its articles by reviewing its masthead or a blog’s list of reporters. In contrast, drop-in political advocacy, like Rocky Mountain Heist, does not afford audiences the same ability to assess the message’s reliability or determine what weight to give it. Id. at 42‒43 (citations omitted). The brief sums up: [T]he exemptions at issue in this case, which apply to both independent expenditures and electioneering communications, are appropriately designed to require disclosure only where a voter’s ability to satisfy the informational interest is most lacking. Each category of exempted 25 communication, by virtue of its medium, permits viewers or readers to assess and evaluate the messaging more easily than a transient communication like Rocky Mountain Heist. Viewers can evaluate the messaging in written periodicals by looking to the publication’s masthead, list of reporters, the angle of news reporting over a period of time, and practice of publishing at regular intervals. Many of the same factors would apply to editorial endorsements or opinions aired by a broadcast facility. Id. at 45–46 (citations omitted).7 7 In supporting the proposition that “the line drawn by Colorado’s press exemption centers on an audience member’s ability to evaluate the credibility of a particular message,” Aplee. Br. at 38, the Secretary’s brief includes the following paragraph: “Second, in contrast to advocacy groups who often engage in specific fundraising appeals in order to engage in a particular initiative or to champion a particular political message, traditional news organizations typically do not engage in fundraising initiatives for express advocacy pieces or solicit money from subscribers who wish to earmark their funds for a specific message. And, even if they were to engage in such fundraising and solicitation efforts, . . . such communications would not qualify as press.” Aplee. Br. at 39–40 (citations omitted). We are not sure what to make of this. The brief does not tie the paragraph to the ability of a reader to evaluate the message. Perhaps the paragraph is only expressing the proposition that certain types of communications—such as solicitations for money to fund a specific message by the entity—are not traditional press functions and would not be exempt from disclosure requirements even if engaged in by an exempted media entity. This proposition is suggested by the three case citations supporting the second sentence. See id. at 40 (“see also McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93, 208 (2003) (press exemption ‘does not afford carte blanche to media companies generally to ignore [the federal campaign statute’s] provisions’); Readers Digest, 509 F. Supp. at 1214 (rejecting assertion that the press exemption would ‘exempt any dissemination or distribution using the press entity’s personnel or equipment, no matter how unrelated to its press function’); San Juan County v. No New Gas Tax, 157 P.3d 831, 841 (Wash. 2007) ([stating that ‘[t]]he distinction between “political advertising” and “commentary” may be relevant in deciding whether a media entity is performing a legitimate press function [and providing as an illustration, a radio station’s giving a campaign free air time for which it usually charges].’)”). And the proposition is consistent with the language of the Colorado media exemptions, which limit them to no more than “news articles, editorial endorsements, opinion or commentary writings, or letters to the editor.” Colo. Const. art. XXVIII, § 2(7)(b); see id. § 2(8)(b). Certainly, solicitations are neither articles nor opinion pieces. Read in this light, the paragraph is not providing a justification for a media exemption, but only for limiting the scope of the exemption Continued . . . 26 We get the message. And it has weight. When a speaker “drops in” on an election and starts talking about candidates and issues, the electorate wants to know who the speaker is to better enable it to evaluate the message. Knowing who is financing the speaker can be helpful in this regard. But when the speaker belongs to the media, the electorate has ample means of making the evaluation. Of course, there may be questions about whether a speaker belongs to the exempted media; but major factors are obviously granted to the exempted media. Because Citizens United has not presented any argument that it should be treated more leniently than other media, we do not concern ourselves with whether these limitations on the exemptions can withstand constitutional scrutiny. On the other hand, one might be able to read into this cryptic paragraph an argument that the media are granted an exemption because they would have nothing to disclose anyway. If this is the argument intended, it is not adequately presented to preserve the point. Moreover, the argument is flawed. The Secretary cites to no legislative or administrative authority or court decision recognizing this justification for the press exemption, and, more importantly, he provides no evidentiary support for the factual premise. He cites only the following exchange during the testimony of his expert witness at the district-court hearing: “[Counsel for Secretary:] Have you ever heard of an organization like The Denver Post or The New York Times raising money specifically to put on an ideological—strike that—a film that contains express advocacy for or against a candidate? [Professor Shepard:] I am not aware of any traditional press organization that would spend this kind of money for a one-time express-advocacy piece in the weeks before an election.” J. App. at 263. This testimony establishes nothing relevant. The witness limits himself to “any traditional press organization,” which would likely exclude many of the online media that qualify for the Colorado media exemptions. He discusses only “one-time” pieces, which is an undefined term that may not include repeat players like Citizens United. And he says nothing about earmarked donations, such as whether blogs receive them or whether repeat-player film makers would have any reportable donations. Consequently, this one sentence of testimony is too slim a reed on which to rest the no-need-to-disclose argument. Further, if earmarked donations to the exempted media are rare (and therefore unexpected), one would think that there would be a heightened, rather than a diminished, interest in learning that the unexpected event (a donation) had occurred. 27 whether it has spoken sufficiently frequently and meaningfully (not in 30-second sound bites) over an extended period of time—factors that closely correlate with the opportunity of the public to evaluate the speaker. See Aplee. Br. at 40 (“organizations engaging in traditional press functions publish at regular intervals, which, in turn, provide electors with a context for evaluating any given message”). For example, in Bailey, which the Secretary endorsed as setting forth how to distinguish a blog that is eligible for the media exemption from one that is not, the court wrote that “[t]his case could well have come out differently if the Cutler Files had any sort of track record before it appeared on August 30, 2010, or if it had extended beyond its two month run.” 900 F. Supp. 2d at 91. At the very least, it is reasonable for Colorado to provide a media exemption on this ground. This ground, however, has an equivalent formulation that is fatal to the Secretary’s position in this case. What the Secretary is saying, in essence, is that the exemption is justified because the interest supporting the disclosures required by Colorado law—to give the electorate the means to evaluate a speaker—does not apply to the exempted media’s reports and commentary as that interest is adequately satisfied by their history of reporting and offering opinions. And once that proposition is accepted, the Secretary must explain why the interest in those disclosures nevertheless applies to films by Citizens United. In our view, the Secretary has not supplied an adequate explanation. See United States v. Nat’l Treasury Emps. Union, 513 U.S. 454, 474 (1995) (“Congress’ decision to provide a total exemption [from a ban on honoraria for speeches and articles by federal employees] for all unrelated series of speeches undermines 28 application of the ban to individual speeches and articles with no nexus to Government employment.” (emphasis added)); City of Ladue v. Gilleo, 512 U.S. 43, 52 (1944) (“Exemptions from an otherwise legitimate regulation of a medium of speech . . . may diminish the credibility of the government’s rationale for restricting speech in the first place.”). The Secretary refers to Citizens United as a “drop-in” advocate, but in the relevant sense of that adjective, it is anything but. In terms of providing the requisite context for its messages, it is similar to exempted blogs and opinion shows on radio and cable television. Citizens United has an extended history of producing substantial work, comparable to magazines or TV special news reports rather than advertisement sound bites. Rocky Mountain Heist is its 25th film on political and religious topics over the course of 10 years. This history provides information about Citizens United that is at least as accessible to the public as donor lists reported to the Secretary. The dissent would have us compare Citizens United to The Denver Post in evaluating the public’s interest in disclosure. But that is not the relevant comparison. The disclosure exemptions are not limited to major Colorado metropolitan newspapers. They cover small weekly papers, quarterly national journals, online newspapers, and blogs originating from anywhere in the world. The Secretary has tried to explain why such entities should be 29 exempted but not Citizens United, and he has failed.8 The electorate would have far more cues to evaluate a documentary by Citizens United than an editorial in a weekly newspaper or quarterly magazine that rarely addresses controversial political topics. Because Colorado has determined that it does not have a sufficient informational interest to impose disclosure burdens on media entities, it does not have a sufficient interest to impose those requirements on Citizens United. There cannot be “a substantial relation between the disclosure requirement and a sufficiently important governmental interest,” Citizens United, 558 U.S. at 366‒67 (internal quotation marks omitted), when there is no important governmental interest. In particular, the film Rocky Mountain Heist is exempt from treatment as an electioneering communication or an independent expenditure. The costs of its production and distribution, and donations earmarked for those purposes, need not be disclosed. 8 The dissent at pages 4‒5 also seems to suggest that there is something unique about films (as a distinct “form of . . . speech”) that justifies distinguishing Citizens United from other media. But the Secretary has made no such argument, and we would reject it anyway. We fail to see any material difference between a documentary as a DVD and a documentary broadcast on TV. The Supreme Court has said that the First Amendment does not recognize distinctions among media used to convey political views. See Citizens United, 558 U.S. at 326 (“Courts, too, are bound by the First Amendment. We must decline to draw, and then redraw, constitutional lines based on the particular media or technology used to disseminate political speech from a particular speaker.”). And in striking down a state statute restricting sales of violent video games to minors, the Court noted the absence of restrictions on violence in other media. See Brown v. Entm’t Merchs. Ass’n, 131 S. Ct. 2729, 2736‒39; id. at 2740 (“Here, California has singled out the purveyors of video games for disfavored treatment—at least when compared to booksellers, cartoonists, and movie producers—and has given no persuasive reason why.”). 30 The dissent suggests that we should not “focus[] on Citizens United and its required disclosure” but rather “whether there is a substantial relation between the State’s interest and the disclosure scheme as a whole, not a single hypothetical.” Op. (Phillips, J. dissenting) at 2 (internal quotation marks omitted). But that cannot be correct. Such an approach eliminates the possibility of as-applied review. Courts can, and often do, recognize the overall propriety of a statutory scheme while still invalidating its application in a specific case. See, e.g., MCFL, 479 U.S. 238 (statutory expenditure restriction is unconstitutional as applied to specific organization); Sampson, 625 F.3d 1247 (disclosure requirement is unconstitutional as applied to specific organization). Also, we cannot justify shirking our constitutional duty because of the dissent’s concerns about determining who qualifies for the media exemptions. To be sure, there could be challenging questions about what entities are entitled to the same relief as Citizens United. But those challenges are inherent in the exemptions expressed in Colorado law. Already the Secretary of State has had to grapple with whether various media are included in the exemptions and has decided that online newspapers and blogs are “printed,” Colo. Const. art. XXVII, § 2(8)(b)(I); apparently grants broadcast facilities the same exemption as print media receive for “articles”; and recognizes the difficulty of 31 determining when a publication (hard copy or electronic) is a periodical, see, e.g., Oral Arg. 18:14‒19:17.9 The above analysis does not apply, however, with respect to advertisements for Rocky Mountain Heist that mention a candidate or express support or opposition to election of a candidate. Citizens United has not shown that such advertisements come within the Colorado exemption for exempted media,10 and thus has not shown that it is being treated differently from those media in this respect. Because the only relief sought 9 JUDGE: And what determines whether a publication is a magazine or a newspaper? Could Citizens United just label a flyer “Citizens United Gazette” and—and avoid the disclosure requirements? ATTORNEY FOR SECRETARY: It—I want to say I know it when I see it, but, you know, that doesn’t—that doesn’t have the greatest history. The— JUDGE: There are no regulations regarding how that’s determined; is that correct? ATTORNEY FOR SECRETARY: Maybe that’s the best answer. Yes. I mean, I can tell you—I can certainly tell you what is and wouldn’t be. Clearly The New York Times is a newspaper or periodical. Clearly a glossy mailer that appears in my mail box or is taped to my door that is one page and is focused solely on a candidate for office is not. Is there—is there a lot of middle ground there? Yes. But I think the best line to draw is—is it—well, let me just leave it there. 10 Perhaps the rationale for the media exemption would also apply to a media entity’s own advertisements—for example, a newspaper’s advertisement promoting its article unambiguously referencing a candidate—because the audience will similarly have enough information to evaluate who is speaking. We do not reach this issue because Citizens United’s complaint focuses on the differential treatment of media entities. If an exempted media entity is subject to disclosure requirements for advertisements that it places in other media, then Citizens United may also be subject to those requirements for advertisements of Rocky Mountain Heist. Of course, if the Secretary determines on reconsideration that a media entity need not disclose spending on its own advertisements that unambiguously reference a candidate or expressly support or oppose a candidate, then this requirement cannot be imposed on Citizens United. 32 by Citizens United in this case is that it benefit from the same exemptions as the exempted media, we can grant it no relief from any disclosure requirements applied to its advertising.11
Having determined that Citizens United’s First Amendment argument is valid, the remaining preliminary-injunction factors present little difficulty. See Hobby Lobby, 723 F.3d at 1145 (“[I]n First Amendment cases, the likelihood of success on the merits will often be the determinative factor.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). First, “the loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Citizens United is poised to distribute its film and would suffer irreparable injury if it were forced to comply with disclosure provisions that are unconstitutional as applied to it. Second, “when a law . . . is likely unconstitutional, the interests of those the government represents, such as voters[,] do not outweigh a plaintiff’s interest in having its constitutional rights 11 We are puzzled by the dissent’s contention that we are deciding this case on equalprotection grounds rather than under the First Amendment. Citizens United has repeatedly disclaimed any reliance on the Equal Protection Clause and our analysis follows settled First Amendment law. Yes, we compare the treatment of Citizens United to the treatment of the exempted media. But that is solely to determine whether Colorado has provided a sufficiently important governmental interest to justify requiring disclosures by Citizens United. We examine the reason provided by the Secretary for Colorado’s decision that there is no sufficient governmental interest in disclosures by the exempted media, determine that the reason applies equally to Citizen United’s films, and conclude that Colorado has not identified a sufficiently important interest to justify requiring disclosure by Citizens United. 33 protected.” Id. (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted). Finally, “it is always in the public interest to prevent the violation of a party’s constitutional rights.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). In sum, all preliminary-injunction factors weigh heavily in favor of Citizens United.12 And because the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction rested on what we hold to be an error of law, we must reverse the denial. By forbidding enforcement of portions of Colorado law against Citizens United at this stage of the litigation, we are no more rewriting Colorado law than a court does whenever it holds a statutory provision unconstitutional as applied. To provide only two examples, in MCFL, 479 U.S. 238, the Supreme Court held that a provision of federal election law could not apply to a specific party, and in Sampson, 625 F.3d 1247, we held that Colorado disclosure requirements could not be imposed on a neighborhood organization opposing annexation to an adjacent town. 12 The district court held that Citizens United’s showing on the four preliminaryinjunction factors was required to meet a heightened standard applicable to certain disfavored injunctions. “Three types of preliminary injunctions are specifically disfavored: (1) preliminary injunctions that alter the status quo; (2) mandatory preliminary injunctions; and (3) preliminary injunctions that afford the movant all the relief that it could recover at the conclusion of a full trial on the merits.” Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. Horne, 698 F.3d 1295, 1301 (10th Cir. 2012). The district court ruled that this case implicated the first and third categories. For these disfavored preliminary injunctions, “the movant has a heightened burden of showing that the traditional four factors weigh heavily and compellingly in its favor before obtaining a preliminary injunction.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). We need not decide whether a heightened standard applies here, however, because all four of the preliminary-injunction factors weigh compellingly in Citizens United’s favor. 34