Document: 454 U.S. 290 102 S.Ct. 434 70 L.Ed.2d 492 CITIZENS AGAINST RENT CONTROL/COALITION FOR FAIR HOUSING, et al., Appellantsv.CITY OF BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA, al. No. 80-737. Argued Oct. 14, 1981. Decided Dec. Syllabus A Berkeley, Cal., ordinance places a limitation of $250 on contributions to committees formed support or oppose ballot measures submitted popular vote. When appellant association, which was measure imposing rent control in the city, accepted some exceeding limit, appellee Berkeley Fair Campaign Practices Commission ordered association pay excess into city treasury. The then brought suit California Superior Court seeking injunctive relief against enforcement ordinance, and that court subsequently granted summary judgment for holding invalid its face as violation First Amendment. Appeal affirmed, but Supreme reversed, furthered compelling governmental interests ensuring special interest groups could not "corrupt" initiative process by spending large amounts measure, outweighed Amendment infringed upon. Held : restraint imposed right turn individual collective rights expression plainly contravenes both speech guarantees Pp. 294-300. (a) To place limit individuals wishing band together advance their views while placing no acting alone, is clearly association. Buckley v. Valeo, 424 1, 96 612, 46 659, held candidates be restricted order prevent corruption appearance. Here, there risk because this case relates favoring opposing measures. Also, voters will doubt identity those whose money supports opposes given since contributors must make identities known under disclosure provisions ordinance. Under exacting judicial review appropriate infringements rights, unconstitutional. 295-299. (b) contribution automatically affects expenditures, limits expenditures operate direct freedom express themselves through groups. There significant state public curtailing debate discussion integrity political system adequately protected if are identified filing revealing contributed. 299-300. 27 Cal.3d 819, 167 Cal.Rptr. 84, 614 P.2d 742, reversed remanded. James R. Parrinello, San Francisco, appellants. Natalie E. West, City Atty., appellees. Chief Justice BURGER delivered opinion Court. 1 issue appeal whether violates 2 * adopted Election Reform Act 1974, Ord. 4700-N.S., initiative. campaign so enacted placed campaigns involving measures.1 Section 602 provides: 3 "No person shall make, treasurer solicit accept, any cause total amount contributed such with respect single election opposition exceed two hundred fifty dollars ($250)."2 4 Appellant Citizens Against Rent Control an unincorporated at April 19, 1977, election. would have many Berkeley's rental units. known, raised more than $108,000 from approximately 1,300 contributors. It nine over limit. Those totaled $20,850, $18,600 none exceeded $250. Pursuant § 604 ordinance,3 Commission, 20 days before election, 5 Two weeks sought obtained temporary restraining prohibiting §§ 604. relating defeated. Control's motion judgment, declaring it violated United States Constitution Art. I, 2, Constitution. panel unanimously affirmed conclusion. 6 Court, dividing 4-3, reversed. 84 (1980). Citing 659 (1976), majority announced strictly scrutinize 602. concluded section ensured measure. Such corruption, found, produce apathetic voters; these were outweigh Finally, accomplished goal least restrictive means available. did consider requirements sufficient prophylaxis dispel perceptions corruption.4 7 We noted probable jurisdiction, 450 908, 101 1344, 67 331 (1981), we reverse. II 8 appellees concede challenged has impact rights; parties disagree only extent impact. Long ago admonished Amendment: 9 "[T]he power regulate exercised not, attaining permissible end, unduly infringe freedom." Cantwell Connecticut, 310 296, 304, 60 900, 903, L.Ed. 1213 (1940). 10 This another way saying regulation always subject review. 11 begin recalling practice persons sharing common banding achieve end deeply embedded American process. 18th-century Committees Correspondence pamphleteers early examples phenomena Federalist Papers perhaps most lasting example. tradition volunteer action manifested itself myriad community activities; can focus candidate Its value effort when, individually, voices faint lost. long viewed t protecting marketplace clash different conflicting ideas. That concept been stated restated almost drafted. restrictions marketplace. irrelevant rather legislative body 602, may violate enacting do legislation. III A. 12 acknowledged importance guaranteeing people heard issues: 13 "Effective advocacy private points view, particularly controversial ones, undeniably enhanced group once recognized remarking upon close nexus between freedoms assembly." NAACP Alabama, 357 449, 460, 78 1163, 1170, 1488 (1958). 14 More recently stated: "The protects well expression." supra, 15, S.Ct., 632. 15 also made clear cannot possibility others larger contributions: 16 government restrict elements our society enhance relative voice wholly foreign Amendment, designed 'to secure "the widest possible dissemination information diverse antagonistic sources," ' "to assure unfettered interchange ideas bringing about social changes desired people." New York Times Co. Sullivan [376 254], 266, 269 [84 710, 718, 686], quoting Associated Press States, 326 [65 1416, 1424, 89 2013] (1945), Roth 354 [476], 484 [77 1304, 1308, 1498]. Amendment's protection abridgment free properly depend person's financial ability engage discussion. Cf. Eastern Conf. Noerr Motors, 365 127, 139 [81 523, 530, 464] (1961)." U.S., 48-49, 648-649. 17 went note "is diluted does include pool contributions, funds often essential 'advocacy' truly optimally 'effective.' " Id., 65-66, 656-657.5 affluent can, spend without advocate when concert one exercise they 18 are, course, activities, legal engaged one, yet illegal performed others, them. Spartan indeed limit—on seek mute individual, allowed hobble expressions group. 19 narrow exception rule activity contrary perception undue influence "To quid pro quo current potential office holders, representative democracy undermined.. . 21 ". Congress legitimately conclude avoidance appearance improper 'is critical confidence Government eroded disastrous extent.' [CSC Letter Carriers ], 413 [548], 565 [93 2880, 2890, 37 796]." 26-27, 638. 22 thus sustained committees. 23 Federal Courts Appeals limitations favor In C & Plywood Corp. Hanson, 583 F.2d 421 (1978), Ninth Circuit struck down Montana statute corporate supporting doing noted: 24 preventing officials, provided basis Court's finding permissibly here." 425. 25 Similarly, Fifth interpreted hold 26 "[t]he sole justification restricting prevention contributor candidate." Let's Help Florida McCrary, 621 195, 199 National Bank Boston Bellotti, 435 765, 98 1407, 55 707 prohibit corporations preclude making advocating Bellotti relied strike measures: 28 "Referenda issues, office. perceived cases elections [citations omitted] simply present vote issue. sure, advertising outcome vote; purpose. But fact persuade electorate hardly reason suppress it: 'protects eloquent less unconvincing.' Kingsley Int'l Pictures Regents, 360 [684], 689 [79 1362, 1365, 1512]." 790, 1423 (footnote omitted). 29 Notwithstanding argues necessary prophylactic supporters opponents true speak committees, adopt seductive names tend conceal source. 112 requires publication lists voting. See n. 4, supra. 30 Contributions concerted committee position beyond question very form expression. As noted, scrutiny. Supra, 294. allegedly advanced -identifying sources measures—is insubstantial identify 112. addition, record conclusion needed preserve voters' 789-790, 1422-1423. clear, therefore, legitimate enough justify infringement rights.6 B 31 Apart impermissible virtually inseparable context, imposes who wish contribute joining views. desiring dialogue concerning 32 Whatever degree regulating limiting candidate's Placing impairs contributed; thought wise, legislation outlaw anonymous contributions. IV 33 setting need analyzed exclusively terms overlap blend; Accordingly, remanded proceedings inconsistent opinion. 34 Reversed 35 REHNQUIST, concurring. 36 I agree case. Unlike factual situation aimed corporations, impose across-the-board size referenda. While appellants here, Mason-McDuffie, corporation, indication opposed individuals. Therefore, my dissenting shield State had come play. holds guaranteed Fourteenth Amendments MARSHALL, concurring judgment. 38 today local organized reaching conclusion, however, fails indicate attaches constitutional significance seeks expenditures. WHITE correctly notes dissent, beginning decision drawn distinction expend his own speech. last term Medical Assn. FEC, 453 182, 196, 2712, 2722, 69 567 (1981) (MARSHALL, J., joined BRENNAN, WHITE, STEVENS, JJ.), 'speech proxy' achieved sort found entitled full protection." 39 Because silent standard applying limitation, assume following consistent type subjected rigorous scrutiny restriction ground maintain voter government. If disclosed evidence undermined "confidence citizenry government," 1423, join dissent demonstrated sustain indirect resulting operation Like Justices BLACKMUN O'CONNOR, find evidentiary record. therefore concur 40 41 here encroach directly Thus, survive challenge unless withstands "exacting scrutiny." 786, 1421, (1978). meet review, demonstrate advances sufficiently important employs 'closely avoid unnecessary abridgment' freedoms. Ibid. (quoting 25, 638, (1976)). 42 neither genuine threat nor employed closely activity. Buckley, upheld corrupting representatives whom delegated decisions. curtailment campaign, where render ultimate decision, justified basis. 43 Nor proved maintaining deny legitimacy interest. Indeed, explicitly "[p]reserving electoral process, 'sustain[ing] active, alert responsibility citizen wise conduct government,' "[p]reservation citizen's government" "interests highest importance" elections. 788-789, 1422, citing Automobile Workers, 352 567, 570, 575, 77 529, 533, 563 (1957). threatened part failed show "by findings imminently undermine democratic processes" government." city's equally sparse. 44 encourage disclosure. accept "insubstantial," concession "when source." Ante, 298. Yet ceiling vigorously enforces already stringent laws. 294, 4. 45 say dissenting. 47 federal Congress, expert matter, protect years later, bare substituting Massachusetts Legislature, invalidated State's prohibition referendum Disagreeing assumption regulations inhibited interplay advocacy, expenditure contested Bellotti. 48 poses encompassing activity, tailored odd measurements Precisely reflects decisions, regulates spending.1 effectiveness preserving debatable. Even so, result illustrates framework problematical strengthens belief proper role carefully drafted 49 represents negligible intrusion should upheld. certainly go what understand permit. For reasons, dissent. 50 quantity content completely Any company up greater desired, expenditure, limited otherwise controlled. Individuals remain interested participate campaign. 51 reaches unconstitutional giving extreme reading essentially all. involved "beyond "entai[l] marginal contributor's communication." 20-21, 635. candidates, "involv[e] someone other contributor" donations "does discuss issues." 21, Indeed become "a expression" just Term involve "some element speech." JJ.). 'Speech proxy,' said, 2715. 52 finds impermissibly compromised allowing unlimited However, observed ceilings "leav[e] independent expression, associate actively volunteering services, assist nonetheless substantial resources." 28, 639. Associational thought, seriously impinged ceilings—there virtue precluding associations effectively amplifying adherents, original recognition association." 22, 636. concern "hobble group" ante, belied appellants, having met budget, ended all fundraising month 53 bad overstates implicated. goes assert furthers "any Apparently assumes directed quos office, exception" endorsing. "unnecessary look Act's primary purpose," uphold limits, upholding restriction. (1957), "sustaining active valid took care objective, along [and] "are importance." 1422. 54 inadequate interests, suggested might "corporate processes, thereby denigrating serving interests." 789, arise shown ha[d] overwhelming influencing referenda." quite test fairly Large mainly sources, skyrocketed declined.2 Staggering disparities developed various measures.3 prove heavy "bought" victory particular proposition, increasing able block adoption process.4 Recognition enormous few institutional overshadow efforts discouraged participation campaigns5 By major communicate voters. speech, diversity presented such, "facilitate enlarge goals vital self-governing 92-93, 669-670. Of entities communications source funds, messages recognize communication reflects, example, powerful number existence laws states suggests,6 significantly evaluation proposal.7 asserts, elaboration, existing suffice inform Yet, inadequacy 101(d) constitutes increased receipts inadequate." 56 Admittedly, conclusive causal relationship undisclosed demise tool democracy. available suffices reasons adopting ceilings. similar foundation (1981). survives cases. 57 grounds sustaining continue believe contentneutral, regulatory actions indirectly affect same manner sphere finance, argument flow speaker proves entirely too much." 262, 747 (WHITE, part). Every regulation—from taxes compulsory bargaining—has effect expressive associational implicated begin, inquiry. slight ephemeral requisite high. 58 understood context historic California. "California's entire history demonstrates repeated use referendums give citizens questions policy." Valtierra, 402 137, 141, 91 1331, 1333, 678 (1971). From earliest days, circumvent decisionmaking.8 served, President Wilson put it, "gun behind door" keep bosses legislators honest. recent years, concerned contests democracy, 1974 Political Act, statewide campaigns,9 separated purpose dominance interests. California, similarly ancillary it. Both serve maximize exchange discourse. fundamental error failure realize derived Amendment." 803-804, 1429-1430 dissenting). 59 Perhaps, "prove" unfairly won sums money, widespread conviction halls, among citizens, danger real. regret continues disregard hazard. 217 defines "measure" Charter amendment, propositions initiative, recall procedure otherwise, circulated purposes submission proposition qualifies ballot." 1977 enforced. labor unions, 605, Pacific Gas Electric Cal.App.3d 123, 131 350 (1976). Following repealed sections 513, lesser $7,500 cents times registered revising comply changes, mistakenly labeled case, notation "do enforce," corrected three months states: "If guilty violating chapter, each received constitute promptly, any, permitted chapter Auditor deposit General fund City." awareness list $50 newspapers twice during seven illustrated cost public. Appellants represent mailing 71,088 $12,800. App. 32. full-page advertisement area newspaper, Independent Gazette, $1,620. Note, 79 Mich.L.Rev. 1433, references relate contributions; "persons." dissent's committees; us originally passed voters, campaigns. invalidation campaigns, Jobs Energy Comm'n, 671, 129 106, 547 1386 limitations. measure's union invalidated. reported November 1980 general one-half 1978 represented 5% made. Contribution Spending Report chairman figures 'alarming steady erosion force process.' Commission's Release 81-14, May 3, infra. construction oil storage terminal Beach, Standard Oil Ohio "contributed" $864,568 spent Beach Civil Action Committee measure; $17,721. S. Lydenberg, Bankrolling Ballots: Role Business Financing Ballot Question Campaigns (1979). 1980, rejected statewide. One circumscribe smoking places. collected $676,216; $518,337 $1,000. 33. An group, Californians Regulatory Excess, $2,750,987. amount, $2.5 million $10,000, four tobacco companies $300,000 $1 each. Update pp. 44-45 second example taxed energy provide revenue finance transportation develop alternative sources. Taxation, nearly $6 $5 corporations. Proponents mustered $464,000. 50-51. third like litigation, control. Proponents, repeal ordinances, gathered $6,867,108, mostly $1,000; $195,496, 99-101. Several studies skew Professor Lowenstein's investigation supported one-sided spending, defined $250,000 much opposite side, successful On hand, defeated successful. D. Lowenstein, Propositions (delivered annual meeting Science Association, City, Sept. 5, 1981). study Colorado initiatives races pro-initiative side commanding lead lost progressed. Corporate-backed forces heavily outspent counterparts. day, Mastro, Costlow, Sanchez, Taking Initiative: Corporate Referendum Process Through Media What Do About It, Fed.Comm.L.J. 315 (1980) (hereinafter Mastro). J. Shockley, Initiative Politics: Assessment Nationwide, backing better Voter turnout municipal decreased 65.9% 1973 45.6% Brief Appellees, 7. Public Communications Office, Finance Law 81 353-354. Brown 509, 522, 584, 592, 487 1224, 1232 (1971) ("A devoid personality judge merits issues reliance view aware, prior real advocates measure"). V. Key W. Crouch, 425-432 (1939); Lee, Referendums: Comparative Study Practice Theory, 87-88 (D. Butler Ranney eds. 1978); Process: Suggestion Reform, S.Cal.L.Rev. 922, 923 (1975) ("The motivation public's desire counter lobbyist, conduit economic interests"). 1979, Cal.Gov't Code Ann. 81000 seq. (West 1976).

Category: 2