Attach to Form 990 or Form 990-EZ.
Information about Schedule A (Form 990 or 990-EZ) and its instructions is at www.irs.gov/form990.
| (i)Name of supported organization | (ii) EIN | (iii) Type of organization (described on lines 1- 9 above (see instructions)) | (iv) Is the organization listed in your governing document? | (v) Amount of monetary support (see instructions) | (vi) Amount of other support (see instructions) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | No | |||||
| Total | ||||||
Calendar year (or fiscal year beginning in) ![]() |
(a) 2011 | (b) 2012 | (c) 2013 | (d) 2014 | (e) 2015 | (f) Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Gifts, grants, contributions, and membership fees received. (Do not include any unusual grants.) .... | 1,814,679 | 1,375,391 | 1,737,254 | 1,948,931 | 1,999,911 | 8,876,166 |
| 2 | Tax revenues levied for the organization's benefit and either paid to or expended on its behalf....... | ||||||
| 3 | The value of services or facilities furnished by a governmental unit to the organization without charge.. | ||||||
| 4 | Total. Add lines 1 through 3 | 1,814,679 | 1,375,391 | 1,737,254 | 1,948,931 | 1,999,911 | 8,876,166 |
| 5 | The portion of total contributions by each person (other than a governmental unit or publicly supported organization) included on line 1 that exceeds 2% of the amount shown on line 11, column (f).. | 4,429,308 | |||||
| 6 | Public support. Subtract line 5 from line 4. | 4,446,858 | |||||
Calendar year
(or fiscal year beginning in) ![]() |
(a) 2011 | (b) 2012 | (c) 2013 | (d) 2014 | (e) 2015 | (f) Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7 | Amounts from line 4.. | 1,814,679 | 1,375,391 | 1,737,254 | 1,948,931 | 1,999,911 | 8,876,166 |
| 8 | Gross income from interest, dividends, payments received on securities loans, rents, royalties and income from similar sources... | 817 | 953 | 108 | 101 | 1,979 | |
| 9 | Net income from unrelated business activities, whether or not the business is regularly carried on.. | ||||||
| 10 | Other income. Do not include gain or loss from the sale of capital assets (Explain in Part VI.).. | 10,450 | 651 | 1,667 | 1,385 | 14,153 | |
| 11 | Total support. Add lines 7 through 10. | 8,892,298 | |||||
Calendar year (or fiscal year beginning in) ![]() |
(a) 2011 | (b) 2012 | (c) 2013 | (d) 2014 | (e) 2015 | (f) Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Gifts, grants, contributions, and membership fees received. (Do not include any "unusual grants.") . | ||||||
| 2 | Gross receipts from admissions, merchandise sold or services performed, or facilities furnished in any activity that is related to the organization's tax-exempt purpose...... | ||||||
| 3 | Gross receipts from activities that are not an unrelated trade or business under section 513... | ||||||
| 4 | Tax revenues levied for the organization's benefit and either paid to or expended on its behalf... | ||||||
| 5 | The value of services or facilities furnished by a governmental unit to the organization without charge.. | ||||||
| 6 | Total. Add lines 1 through 5. | ||||||
| 7a | Amounts included on lines 1, 2, and 3 received from disqualified persons... | ||||||
| b | Amounts included on lines 2 and 3 received from other than disqualified persons that exceed the greater of $5,000 or 1% of the amount on line 13 for the year. | ||||||
| c | Add lines 7a and 7b.. | ||||||
| 8 | Public support. (Subtract line 7c from line 6.) | ||||||
Calendar year (or fiscal year beginning in) ![]() |
(a) 2011 | (b) 2012 | (c) 2013 | (d) 2014 | (e) 2015 | (f) Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9 | Amounts from line 6... | ||||||
| 10a | Gross income from interest, dividends, payments received on securities loans, rents, royalties and income from similar sources.. | ||||||
| b | Unrelated business taxable income (less section 511 taxes) from businesses acquired after June 30, 1975. | ||||||
| c | Add lines 10a and 10b. | ||||||
| 11 | Net income from unrelated business activities not included in line 10b, whether or not the business is regularly carried on. | ||||||
| 12 | Other income. Do not include gain or loss from the sale of capital assets (Explain in Part VI.) .. | ||||||
| 13 | Total support. (Add lines 9, 10c, 11, and 12.).. | ||||||
| Section A - Adjusted Net Income | (A) Prior Year |
(B) Current Year (optional) |
||||
| 1 | Net short-term capital gain | 1 | ||||
| 2 | Recoveries of prior-year distributions | 2 | ||||
| 3 | Other gross income (see instructions) | 3 | ||||
| 4 | Add lines 1 through 3 | 4 | ||||
| 5 | Depreciation and depletion | 5 | ||||
| 6 | Portion of operating expenses paid or incurred for production or collection of gross income or for management, conservation, or maintenance of property held for production of income (see instructions) | 6 | ||||
| 7 | Other expenses (see instructions) | 7 | ||||
| 8 | Adjusted Net Income (subtract lines 5, 6 and 7 from line 4) | 8 | ||||
| Section B - Minimum Asset Amount | (A) Prior Year |
(B) Current Year (optional) |
||||
| 1 | Aggregate fair market value of all non-exempt-use assets (see instructions for short tax year or assets held for part of year): | 1 | ||||
| a | Average monthly value of securities | 1a | ||||
| b | Average monthly cash balances | 1b | ||||
| c | Fair market value of other non-exempt-use assets | 1c | ||||
| d | Total (add lines 1a, 1b, and 1c) | 1d | ||||
| e |
Discount claimed for blockage or other factors (explain in detail in Part VI): |
|||||
| 2 | Acquisition indebtedness applicable to non-exempt use assets | 2 | ||||
| 3 | Subtract line 2 from line 1d | 3 | ||||
| 4 | Cash deemed held for exempt use. Enter 1-1/2% of line 3 (for greater amount, see instructions). | 4 | ||||
| 5 | Net value of non-exempt-use assets (subtract line 4 from line 3) | 5 | ||||
| 6 | Multiply line 5 by .035 | 6 | ||||
| 7 | Recoveries of prior-year distributions | 7 | ||||
| 8 | Minimum Asset Amount (add line 7 to line 6) | 8 | ||||
| Section C - Distributable Amount | Current Year | |||||
| 1 | Adjusted net income for prior year (from Section A, line 8, Column A) | 1 | ||||
| 2 | Enter 85% of line 1 | 2 | ||||
| 3 | Minimum asset amount for prior year (from Section B, line 8, Column A) | 3 | ||||
| 4 | Enter greater of line 2 or line 3 | 4 | ||||
| 5 | Income tax imposed in prior year | 5 | ||||
| 6 | Distributable Amount. Subtract line 5 from line 4, unless subject to emergency temporary reduction (see instructions) | 6 | ||||
| Section D - Distributions | Current Year | |
|---|---|---|
| 1 Amounts paid to supported organizations to accomplish exempt purposes | ||
|
2
Amounts paid to perform activity that directly furthers exempt purposes of supported organizations, in excess of income from activity |
||
| 3 Administrative expenses paid to accomplish exempt purposes of supported organizations | ||
| 4 Amounts paid to acquire exempt-use assets | ||
| 5 Qualified set-aside amounts (prior IRS approval required) | ||
| 6 Other distributions (describe in Part VI). See instructions | ||
| 7Total annual distributions. Add lines 1 through 6. | ||
|
8
Distributions to attentive supported organizations to which the organization is responsive (provide details in Part VI). See instructions |
||
| 9 Distributable amount for 2015 from Section C, line 6 | ||
| 10 Line 8 amount divided by Line 9 amount | ||
| Section E - Distribution Allocations (see instructions) |
(i) Excess Distributions |
(ii) Underdistributions Pre-2015 |
(iii) Distributable Amount for 2015 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
1
Distributable amount for 2015 from Section C, line 6 |
||||
|
2
Underdistributions, if any, for years prior to 2015 (reasonable cause required--see instructions) |
||||
| 3 Excess distributions carryover, if any, to 2015: | ||||
| a | ||||
| b | ||||
| c | ||||
| d From 2013....... | ||||
| e From 2014....... | ||||
| fTotal of lines 3a through e | ||||
| g Applied to underdistributions of prior years | ||||
| h Applied to 2015 distributable amount | ||||
|
i
Carryover from 2010 not applied (see instructions) |
||||
| j Remainder. Subtract lines 3g, 3h, and 3i from 3f. | ||||
| 4Distributions for 2015 from Section D, line 7: | ||||
| $ | ||||
| a Applied to underdistributions of prior years | ||||
| b Applied to 2015 distributable amount | ||||
| c Remainder. Subtract lines 4a and 4b from 4. | ||||
|
5
Remaining underdistributions for years prior to 2015, if any. Subtract lines 3g and 4a from line 2 (if amount greater than zero, see instructions) |
||||
|
6
Remaining underdistributions for 2015. Subtract lines 3h and 4b from line 1 (if amount greater than zero, see instructions) |
||||
|
7 Excess distributions carryover to 2016. Add lines 3j and 4c. |
||||
| 8 Breakdown of line 7: | ||||
| a | ||||
| b | ||||
| c Excess from 2013....... | ||||
| d From 2014....... | ||||
| e From 2015....... | ||||
| Facts And Circumstances Test |
|---|
| Return Reference | Explanation |
|---|
| Software ID: | |
| Software Version: |
Attach to Form 990 or 990-EZ.
Information about Schedule O (Form 990 or 990-EZ) and its instructions is at| Return Reference | Explanation |
|---|---|
| FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION A, LINE 8B | NO SUCH COMMITTEES EXISTED. |
| FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION B, LINE 11 | THE CENTER'S AUDIT COMMITTEE REVIEWS A DRAFT OF THE 990 PRIOR TO FILING. A COPY OF THE FORM 990 IS ALSO PROVIDED TO THE CENTER'S GOVERNING BODY BEFORE IT IS FILED. |
| FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION B, LINE 12C | EVERY YEAR BOTH THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND EVERY EMPLOYEE REVIEWS THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICY AND MUST DISCLOSE ANY CONFLICTS. THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS REVIEWS THE POLICY AT OR AROUND ITS FINAL MEETING OF THE YEAR AND EACH MEMBER PROVIDES WRITTEN ACKNOWLEDGMENT. EVERY EMPLOYEE ALSO RECEIVES AN ELECTRONIC COPY OF THE POLICY. ANY CONFLICTS OR POTENTIAL CONFLICTS ARE RESOLVED BY THE PRESIDENT OR OTHERWISE REPORTED BY THE PRESIDENT AND REVIEWED AND RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS. IN REVIEWING ANY CONFLICT OR POTENTIAL CONFLICT, ANY MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS WHO MAY HAVE A CONFLICT IS RECUSED FROM RESOLVING THE CONFLICT OR POTENTIAL CONFLICT. |
| FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION B, LINE 15A | THE PRESIDENT'S COMPENSATION IS NEGOTIATED WITH THE CHAIRMAN, AND APPROVED BY THE BOARD. COMPENSATION FOR EMPLOYEES IS APPROVED BY THE PRESIDENT. |
| FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION C, LINE 19 | THE CENTER'S FORM 990 IS AVAILABLE ON ITS WEBSITE AND IS AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC UPON REQUEST. THE AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS ARE AVAILABLE ON ITS WEBSITE. |
| FORM 990, PART XII, LINE 2C | THE PROCESS DID NOT CHANGE FROM THE PRIOR YEAR. THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SELECTION OF THE INDEPENDENT AUDITORS AND OVERSIGHT OF THE INDEPENDENT AUDIT. |
| CASES IN LITIGATION PART 1 | CALZONE V. MISSOURI ETHICS COMMISSION CAN A STATE GOVERNMENT FINE YOU SIMPLY FOR TALKING TO STATE LEGISLATORS? THAT IS THE QUESTION AT THE CENTER OF CALZONE V. MISSOURI ETHICS COMMISSION. IN AUGUST 2016, CCP TOOK THE CASE OF RON CALZONE, A CITIZEN ACTIVIST IN THE STATE OF MISSOURI. SOME LEGISLATORS AND LOBBYISTS IN THE STATE ARE ATTEMPTING TO SILENCE MR. CALZONE, WHO HAS FOR MANY YEARS ADVOCATED FOR INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY, FREE MARKETS, AND CONSTITUTIONALLY LIMITED GOVERNMENT. UNFORTUNATELY, AS MR. CALZONE SAYS, "MY ACTIVISM HAS MADE SOME POWERFUL ENEMIES--MAYBE HIGH-PAID LOBBYISTS DON'T LIKE HAVING TO EXPLAIN TO THEIR CLIENTS WHY AVERAGE CITIZENS, USING NOTHING MORE THAN FACTS, REASON AND SPEECH, BEAT THEM AT THEIR OWN GAME TIME AND AGAIN." CALZONE SAYS HE HAS "ANGERED POWERFUL LEGISLATORS BY OPPOSING THEM WHEN THEY WERE TRYING TO ADVANCE UNCONSTITUTIONAL BILLS OR IGNORE CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS ON THEIR POWER." MR. CALZONE'S DIFFICULTIES WITH STATE REGULATORS BEGAN ON ELECTION DAY IN 2014, WHEN THE SOCIETY OF GOVERNMENT CONSULTANTS, A LOBBYIST GUILD IN MISSOURI, FILED A COMPLAINT WITH THE MISSOURI ETHICS COMMISSION. THE COMPLAINT CLAIMED THAT, WHEN MR. CALZONE SPOKE WITH LEGISLATORS DURING HIS ADVOCACY, HE WAS ACTING AS A PAID LOBBYIST - AND THAT HIS FAILURE TO REGISTER AS A LOBBYIST WITH THE STATE WAS AGAINST THE LAW, SUBJECTING HIM TO FINES AND POSSIBLY EVEN JAIL TIME. CCP'S LEGAL TEAM HAS STEPPED IN TO DEFEND MR. CALZONE AGAINST THESE CHARGES, REPRESENTING CALZONE IN SEPTEMBER WHEN HIS CASE CAME BEFORE THE MISSOURI ETHICS COMMISSION. THE ETHICS COMMISSION HAS ARGUED THAT BECAUSE MR. CALZONE HAS PUBLICLY MENTIONED HIS INVOLVEMENT WITH MISSOURI FIRST - A NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION WITH NO FINANCIAL RESOURCES - HE MUST REGISTER AS A LOBBYIST AND LIST MISSOURI FIRST AS THE ORGANIZATION FOR WHICH HE IS SPEAKING. REGISTERED LOBBYISTS MUST PAY A REGISTRATION FEE AND REGULARLY SUBMIT REPORTS DETAILING ALL OF THE WAYS IN WHICH THEY HAVE ATTEMPTED TO INFLUENCE LEGISLATION. NOT ONLY DOES THE REGISTRATION REQUIREMENT PUT AN IMPERMISSIBLE CONDITION ON A CITIZEN'S CONSTITUTIONALLY-PROTECTED FREEDOM OF SPEECH, IT ALSO PUTS SPEAKERS AT RISK OF HUGE FINES - AND POTENTIAL CRIMINAL PENALTIES - IF THE REQUIRED REPORTS ARE DEEMED INCOMPLETE. WE BELIEVE THAT THE MISSOURI ETHICS COMMISSION'S CLAIM IS THANKFULLY NOT THE LAW IN MISSOURI, AND WOULD BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL IF IT WERE. NEITHER MISSOURI FIRST NOR ANY OTHER ORGANIZATION HAS EVER DESIGNATED MR. CALZONE AS A LOBBYIST, OR PAID HIM AT ALL FOR THE COMMUNICATION AT ISSUE IN THIS CASE. WE ARE CONFIDENT THAT THE COURTS WILL VINDICATE MR. CALZONE'S CLEAR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO ENGAGE IN UNCOMPENSATED CONVERSATION WITH OFFICIALS CONCERNING THE LAWS THAT WILL GOVERN THIS STATE. ON APRIL 19, 2016, THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT OF MISSOURI ISSUED A PRELIMINARY ORDER OF PROHIBITION AND ORDERED THE STATE TO CEASE ALL ACTION IN THE MATTER. SUCCESS IN THIS CASE WOULD PROTECT THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO PETITION GOVERNMENT FOR A REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES. CENTER FOR COMPETITIVE POLITICS V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION THIS CASE CONCERNS A FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA) CHALLENGE TO A FEDERAL AGENCY'S REFUSAL TO RELEASE AN UNREDACTED COPY OF THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION (FEC) GENERAL COUNSEL'S REPORT PERTAINING TO A CLOSED ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDING. THIS CASE SEEKS TO INFORM THE PUBLIC OF THE FEC'S POLICY ON IMPORTANT QUESTIONS OF CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAW AND THE FEC'S FOIA POLICY. ON DECEMBER 11, 2015, THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION (FEC) AGREED TO PRODUCE THE REPORT TO SETTLE THE LAWSUIT. THE PUBLIC BENEFITED FROM LEARNING MORE ABOUT THE FEC'S VIEWS ON WHEN ORGANIZATIONS MUST REGISTER AS A POLITICAL COMMITTEE. CENTER FOR COMPETITIVE POLITICS V. HARRIS AS IN MOST OTHER STATES, CHARITIES SOLICITING CONTRIBUTIONS IN CALIFORNIA ARE REQUIRED TO REGISTER WITH THE STATE. EACH YEAR, REGISTERED CHARITIES ARE REQUIRED TO FILE A COPY OF THEIR IRS FORM 990 TAX RETURNS WITH THE CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE AS A CONDITION FOR MAINTAINING THEIR CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED LEGAL ABILITY TO SOLICIT CONTRIBUTIONS IN THE STATE. ON SCHEDULE B OF THE FORM 990, CHARITIES ARE REQUIRED TO REPORT TO THE IRS THE NAMES, ADDRESSES, AND AMOUNTS OF ALL DONORS WHO HAVE GIVEN EITHER AT LEAST $5,000 OR MORE THAN 2% OF THE ORGANIZATION'S TOTAL REVENUE DURING THE YEAR. THE SCHEDULE B IS SUBMITTED TO THE IRS ON A CONFIDENTIAL BASIS AND, UNDER FEDERAL LAW, THE AGENCY IS PROHIBITED FROM RELEASING THIS INFORMATION TO ANYONE - INCLUDING STATE OFFICIALS. SIMILAR PRIVACY PROTECTIONS DO NOT EXIST UNDER CALIFORNIA'S AND MANY OTHER STATE'S LAWS. HISTORICALLY, THE CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS NOT REQUIRED REGISTERED CHARITIES TO FILE A COPY OF THEIR CONFIDENTIAL, UNREDACTED FORM 990 SCHEDULE B DONOR LISTS WITH THE STATE. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ONLY BEGAN DEMANDING THIS INFORMATION IN RECENT YEARS, AND THE SUDDEN DEMANDS DID NOT ARISE FROM ANY CHANGES IN, AND ARE NOT SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY, THE STATE'S LAWS AND REGULATIONS. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ALSO HAS NOT CITED ANY RECENT CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES WARRANTING THESE DEMANDS. BECAUSE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IS NOT LEGALLY ENTITLED TO THIS INFORMATION AND HAS NO GOOD REASON FOR HAVING IT, THE CENTER FOR COMPETITIVE POLITICS (CCP) FILED SUIT TO STOP THIS PRACTICE. WE ARGUE THAT THE CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL'S DEMANDS FOR OUR DONOR INFORMATION IS AN INFRINGEMENT OF CCP AND ITS DONORS' FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS TO FREE SPEECH AND ASSOCIATION. DONORS WHO MAY NOT NECESSARILY WISH TO SPEAK ON THEIR OWN ABOUT AN ISSUE MAY CHOOSE TO EXERCISE THEIR RIGHT TO SPEAK BY GIVING TO AN ORGANIZATION TO SPEAK ON THEIR BEHALF. THIS IS PARTICULARLY TRUE FOR UNPOPULAR OR CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES - PRECISELY THE TYPE OF SPEECH FOR WHICH THE FIRST AMENDMENT'S PROTECTIONS ARE MOST IMPORTANT. DONORS TO AN ORGANIZATION ALSO ASSOCIATE WITH EACH OTHER FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING THEIR VOICES LOUDER AND MORE EFFECTIVE. DONORS MUST BE FREE TO GIVE TO ANY LAWFUL CAUSE OF THEIR CHOOSING WITHOUT GOVERNMENT INTRUSION. IF GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS ARE LOOKING OVER DONORS' SHOULDERS AND REVIEWING WHICH GROUPS THEY GIVE TO, THAT WILL CREATE A CHILLING EFFECT AND REDUCE DONORS' WILLINGNESS TO GIVE TO CERTAIN GROUPS, THEREBY REDUCING THEIR ABILITY TO SPEAK AND TO ASSOCIATE FREELY. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ALSO CLAIMS THAT THE DEFAULT RULE SHOULD BE FOR INDIVIDUAL CHARITIES OPPOSING DEMANDS FOR THEIR DONOR INFORMATION TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THEY WILL FACE PARTICULARIZED HARM FROM TURNING THE DATA OVER TO THE GOVERNMENT. IN EFFECT, THIS CREATES A CATCH-22, IN WHICH ORGANIZATIONS AND THEIR DONORS CAN CLAIM AN EXEMPTION TO HARM ONLY AFTER THEY HAVE ALREADY SUFFERED HARM OR THREATS, BUT ORGANIZATIONS AND DONORS WOULD HAVE NO PROTECTION AGAINST UNFORESEEABLE FUTURE HARMS. THE FIRST AMENDMENT CASE LAW DOES NOT SUPPORT SUCH A RULE THAT ONLY LOOKS BACKWARD. SUCCESS IN THIS CASE WILL PROTECT THE GENERAL PUBLIC'S FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH. IT WILL ALSO PROTECT THE PRIVACY OF DONORS TO CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS, WHICH WILL ENCOURAGE THE PUBLIC TO GIVE GENEROUSLY TO SUPPORT THE CHARITABLE MISSIONS OF A WIDE VARIETY OF ORGANIZATIONS. |
| CASES IN LITIGATION PART 2 | CITIZEN OUTREACH V. MILLER IN FEBRUARY 2014, THE CENTER BEGAN REPRESENTING CITIZEN OUTREACH, A 501(C)(4) THAT ALLEGEDLY RAN AFOUL OF NEVADA CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAW IN 2010 WHEN IT DISTRIBUTED TWO FLIERS CRITICAL OF A STATE LEGISLATOR. THE LAWSUIT AGAINST CITIZEN OUTREACH, A SMALL NONPROFIT ENGAGED IN GRASSROOTS ACTIVISM IN NEVADA WAS FINANCIALLY DEVASTATING TO THE GROUP. AFTER WE LEARNED THAT THE GROUP HAD LOST IN A LOWER COURT, WE STEPPED IN AND WON THE APPEAL TO THE NEVADA SUPREME COURT, WHICH RULED IN FAVOR OF THE GROUP IN FEBRUARY 2015. THE RULING WAS AN IMPORTANT VICTORY FOR FREE SPEECH. THE SECRETARY OF STATE TRIED TO USE A LAW PASSED AFTER THE GROUP SPOKE IN ORDER TO IMPOSE FINES AND BURDENSOME GOVERNMENT FILING AND DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS SIMPLY FOR EXERCISING ITS FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS. THE 5-2 RULING SAID THAT "WHEN IT COMES TO THE EXERCISE OF FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS, ANY 'TIE GOES TO THE SPEAKER, NOT THE CENSOR....' [W]E CONCLUDE THAT BASIC PRINCIPLES OF FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS REQUIRE US TO CONSTRUE [THE LAW IN EFFECT IN 2009] NARROWLY." AT ISSUE IN THE CASE WAS WHETHER CITIZEN OUTREACH'S 2010 FLYERS, CRITICAL OF A STATE ASSEMBLYMAN UP FOR RE-ELECTION, CONSTITUTED "EXPRESS ADVOCACY." THE MEANING OF THAT TERM WAS CRUCIAL, BECAUSE A FINDING THAT THE NONPROFIT HAD ENGAGED IN EXPRESS ADVOCACY WOULD TRIGGER AN OBLIGATION TO FILE WITH THE GOVERNMENT, INCLUDING A LIST OF ITS SUPPORTERS, ALL OF WHOM HAD NO ADVANCE KNOWLEDGE THE GROUP WOULD DISTRIBUTE THE FLYERS. NEVADA'S HIGH COURT FOUND THAT THE DEFINITION OF "EXPRESS ADVOCACY" UNDER STATE LAW WAS UNCLEAR AT THE TIME THAT CITIZEN OUTREACH DISTRIBUTED ITS FLYERS, BUT THAT IT WOULD NOT HAVE COVERED THE MAILINGS. THE RULING WILL HELP PROTECT THE GENERAL PUBLIC'S FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH. COALITION FOR SECULAR GOVERNMENT V. WILLIAMS THIS CASE ASKS FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF UNDER THE FIRST AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS CONCERNING COLORADO'S REGULATION OF A NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION AND ITS DISTRIBUTION OF A PUBLIC POLICY PAPER. COLORADO RESIDENT DIANA HSIEH, A DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY, ORGANIZED THE NONPROFIT COALITION FOR SECULAR GOVERNMENT (CSG) WITH HER FRIEND ARI ARMSTRONG IN ORDER TO PROMOTE A SECULAR UNDERSTANDING OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, INCLUDING FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE AND THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. BECAUSE OF UNCONSTITUTIONALLY VAGUE STATE LAWS, CONFUSION AS TO WHAT CONSTITUTES POLITICAL SPEECH AND WHAT IS COVERED UNDER A PRESS EXEMPTION, AND A REFUSAL BY THE STATE TO ABIDE BY A FEDERAL COURT ORDER, HSIEH AND CSG HAVE FOUND IT NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE TO CARRY OUT THE ACTIVITIES OF A SMALL NONPROFIT GROUP WITHOUT FEAR OF RUNNING AFOUL OF COMPLEX COLORADO CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAWS. THIS LITIGATION SEEKS TO PROTECT SMALL ISSUE-FOCUSED ORGANIZATIONS LIKE CSG FROM BEING LADEN WITH THE BURDENS OF CAMPAIGN FINANCE DISCLOSURE THAT SERVES NO LEGITIMATE PURPOSE, AND CHALLENGES THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF COLORADO'S "ISSUE COMMITTEE" DEFINITION AND REGULATIONS. THE COALITION WON THEIR CHALLENGE IN DISTRICT COURT, WITH THE JUDGE WRITING THAT "ANY 'INFORMATIONAL INTEREST' THE GOVERNMENT HAS IN MANDATING CONTRIBUTION AND EXPENDITURE DISCLOSURES [IS] SO MINIMAL AS TO BE NONEXISTENT [IN THIS CASE], AND CERTAINLY INSUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY THE BURDENS COMPLIANCE IMPOSES ON MEMBERS' CONSTITUTIONAL FREE SPEECH AND ASSOCIATION RIGHTS." THE RULING PROVISIONALLY AWARDED ATTORNEY'S FEES AS THE PREVAILING PARTY UNDER 42 U.S.C. 1983 AND 1988. THE RULING WAS AFFIRMED BY THE TENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, BUT THE STATE HAS PETITIONED THE U.S. SUPREME COURT FOR REVIEW OF THE DECISION. SUCCESS IN THIS CASE WILL PROTECT THE GENERAL PUBLIC'S FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH. DELAWARE STRONG FAMILIES V. DENN THIS CASE PRESENTS A FIRST AMENDMENT CHALLENGE TO DELAWARE STATE REGISTRATION AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS AS APPLIED TO A NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION'S NONPARTISAN VOTER GUIDE THAT WAS PREPARED ACCORDING TO THE GUIDELINES REQUIRED UNDER IRS RULES. SHOULD THE STATE HAVE THE POWER TO REGULATE GROUPS THAT PUBLISH NONPARTISAN VOTER GUIDES IN THE SAME WAY THAT IT REGULATES CANDIDATE COMMITTEES, POLITICAL PARTIES, AND PACS? THAT'S THE ISSUE AT STAKE IN DELAWARE STRONG FAMILIES V. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF DELAWARE, A CASE CHALLENGING A RECENTLY PASSED STATE LAW (THE DELAWARE ELECTIONS DISCLOSURE ACT) THAT VIOLATES THE FIRST AMENDMENT BY PLACING UNCONSTITUTIONAL BURDENS ON GROUPS THAT PUBLISH NONPARTISAN VOTER GUIDES. ON APRIL 8, 2014, A FEDERAL JUDGE GRANTED OUR MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION TO BAR ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAW AGAINST DELAWARE STRONG FAMILIES (DSF). IN HER RULING, THE JUDGE WROTE THAT "THERE IS NO CASE THAT PURPORTS TO ADDRESS DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS WITH THE BREADTH" OF THE DELAWARE LAW. THE COURT CONCLUDED THAT "THE RELATION BETWEEN THE PERSONAL INFORMATION COLLECTED AND THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF THE [LAW] IS TOO TENUOUS TO PASS CONSTITUTIONAL MUSTER AND BARRED THE STATE FROM REQUIRING THE GROUP TO FILE DONOR DISCLOSURE REPORTS. UNFORTUNATELY, ON JULY 16, 2015, THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT RULED AGAINST OUR CLIENT. WE ASKED THE ENTIRE THIRD CIRCUIT TO RECONSIDER THE RULING. AS WE EXPECTED, IT DECLINED, BUT TWO JUDGES SUPPORTED THE MOTION TO RECONSIDER. WE APPEALED THE CASE TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT AND ON JUNE 28, 2016, THE U.S. SUPREME COURT DECLINED TO HEAR THE APPEAL. AS WRITTEN, THE LAW APPEARS TO REQUIRE GROUPS TO CHOOSE BETWEEN PUBLISHING INFORMATION ON CANDIDATES AND VIOLATING THE PRIVACY OF THEIR SUPPORTERS WHO MIGHT CONTRIBUTE AS LITTLE AS $9 A MONTH. AS A RESULT OF THE LAW, DELAWAREANS WILL FIND IT MORE DIFFICULT TO OBTAIN INFORMATION ABOUT ELECTED OFFICIALS AND CANDIDATES. A VICTORY WOULD HAVE PROTECTED ON A NATIONAL BASIS NONPARTISAN POLITICAL SPEECH THAT DOES NOT ADVOCATE FOR OR AGAINST ANY CANDIDATE FROM STATE REGULATION. HOLMES ET AL. V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION THIS CASE RAISES AN AS-APPLIED FIRST AMENDMENT CHALLENGE TO A LAW THAT OFTEN ALLOWS CONGRESSIONAL INCUMBENTS TO RAISE TWICE AS MUCH FROM CONTRIBUTORS TO SPEND ON THEIR GENERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGNS AS COMPARED TO CHALLENGERS. FEDERAL CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAWS LIMIT CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS TO CANDIDATES TO $2,700 FOR THE PRIMARY ELECTION AND $2,700 FOR THE GENERAL ELECTION. HOWEVER, DONATIONS OF $5,400 ARE PERMITTED THROUGH THE DAY OF THE PRIMARY, THOUGH ONLY HALF THAT AMOUNT CAN BE SPENT ON THE PRIMARY RACE. INCUMBENTS, WHO RARELY FACE A COMPETITIVE PRIMARY, CAN RAISE UP TO $5,400 IN A SINGLE CONTRIBUTION OVER A MUCH LONGER TIME PERIOD THAN MOST CHALLENGERS AND OFTEN SPEND IT ALL ON THE GENERAL ELECTION. A CHALLENGER, ON THE OTHER HAND, WILL USUALLY HAVE TO DEFEAT OPPONENTS IN THE PRIMARY ELECTION AND HAVE SCANT PRIMARY FUNDS LEFT TO SPEND ON THE NOVEMBER CONTEST. THE NEXT DAY, CHALLENGERS ARE HAMSTRUNG TO RAISING JUST $2,700 PER DONOR FOR THE GENERAL ELECTION, EFFECTIVELY HALF THE AMOUNT RAISED FROM MANY DONORS BY INCUMBENTS FOR USE IN A GENERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN. SUCCESS IN THIS CASE WILL PROTECT THE GENERAL PUBLIC'S FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH. ON APRIL 26, 2016, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT RULED THAT OUR CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE MUST BE HEARD BY THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SITTING EN BANC. |
| CASES IN LITIGATION PART 3 | INDEPENDENCE INSTITUTE V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION THE INDEPENDENCE INSTITUTE WISHED TO RUN AN AD ASKING COLORADO SENATORS MARK UDALL AND MICHAEL BENNET TO SUPPORT A FEDERAL SENTENCING REFORM BILL. THE MCCAIN-FEINGOLD LAW EFFECTIVELY PREVENTS THE GROUP FROM RAISING MONEY FOR THE ADS. FEDERAL LAW TREATS SPEECH ABOUT PUBLIC ISSUES AS CAMPAIGN SPEECH WHENEVER A CANDIDATE IS MENTIONED IN A BROADCAST AD WITHIN 60 DAYS OF THE GENERAL ELECTION. GROUPS MUST EITHER FILE PUBLIC REPORTS WITH PERSONAL DETAILS ABOUT DONORS WHO HAVE PROVIDED FUNDS FOR THE ADS, OR REFRAIN FROM SPEAKING. THE RESULT IS WHAT FIRST AMENDMENT ADVOCATES CALL A "CHILLING" EFFECT ON ADVOCACY, DEPRIVING THE PUBLIC OF IMPORTANT SPEECH ABOUT ISSUES OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE. DONORS AND SPEAKERS HAVE MANY REASONS TO PROTECT THEIR PRIVACY. SOME FEAR RETALIATION FROM GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS WHO DISAGREE WITH THEM. OTHERS FEAR PHYSICAL HARM OR THREATS TO THEMSELVES AND THEIR FAMILIES, VANDALISM TO THEIR PROPERTY, LOSS OF EMPLOYMENT, OR BOYCOTTS OF THEIR BUSINESS IF THEY SUPPORT UNPOPULAR VIEWS. SOME JUST VALUE THEIR PRIVACY, OR DON'T WANT THEIR CONTRIBUTIONS TO SPUR NUMEROUS REQUESTS FOR ASSISTANCE FROM OTHER GROUPS DISCUSSING OTHER ISSUES. NONETHELESS, FEDERAL LAW TRANSFORMS ISSUE SPEECH INTO CAMPAIGN SPEECH WHENEVER A CANDIDATE FOR OFFICE IS MENTIONED WITHIN TWO MONTHS OF THE GENERAL ELECTION. AS A RESULT, MANY GROUPS CHOOSE SILENCE OVER ADVOCACY. THIS CASE PRESENTS AN AS-APPLIED FIRST AND FIFTH AMENDMENT CHALLENGE TO THE BIPARTISAN CAMPAIGN REFORM ACT'S PROVISIONS REQUIRING A NONPROFIT AIRING AN ADVERTISEMENT MENTIONING A CANDIDATE BEFORE AN ELECTION, BUT NEITHER SUPPORTING NOR OPPOSING THAT CANDIDATE, TO REGISTER WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND REPORT ITS DONORS. THE INSTITUTE SEEKS TO VINDICATE THE PUBLIC'S RIGHT TO SEEK OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT ACTION FROM OFFICEHOLDERS WITHOUT OPENING ITS BOOKS TO PUBLIC DISCLOSURE. SUCCESS IN THIS CASE WILL PROTECT THE PUBLIC'S FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH. IT WILL ALSO PROTECT THE PRIVACY OF DONORS TO CAUSES, WHICH WILL ENCOURAGE THE PUBLIC TO GIVE GENEROUSLY TO SUPPORT EFFORTS TO PROMOTE SOUND PUBLIC POLICIES. ON MARCH 1, 2016, THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT RULED THAT OUR CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE TO FEDERAL ELECTIONEERING COMMUNICATIONS DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS MUST BE HEARD BY A THREE-JUDGE DISTRICT COURT. THIS DECISION DIDN'T REACH THE MERITS OF OUR CASE - IT ORDERED THE LOWER COURT TO GIVE OUR CLIENTS THE THREE-JUDGE PANEL PROVIDED FOR BY THE LAW. AS SUCH, IT WAS A KEY PROCEDURAL VICTORY AND IT SETS AN IMPORTANT PRECEDENT IN THE D.C. CIRCUIT, WHERE NEARLY ALL FEDERAL CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAW CHALLENGES ARE BROUGHT. IN A SIGN OF THIS CASE'S IMPORTANCE, BOB BAUER, A FORMER WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL WHO RUNS AN INFLUENTIAL BLOG ON CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAW, WROTE THAT THIS LAWSUIT "COULD PROVE TO BE HIGHLY SIGNIFICANT . TO DATE, THE [SUPREME] COURT HAS NOT BEEN CONFRONTED WITH WELL-ARGUED AS-APPLIED CHALLENGES THAT FORCE ITS ENGAGEMENT WITH THE HARDER QUESTIONS [ON DISCLOSURE ISSUES] THAT A SUIT LIKE INDEPENDENCE INSTITUTE RAISES." INDEPENDENCE INSTITUTE V. WILLIAMS THIS CASE RAISES SIMILAR QUESTIONS AS THE INDEPENDENCE INSTITUTE V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION CASE LISTED ABOVE, BUT CHALLENGES A SIMILAR STATE LAW. SUCCESS IN THIS CASE WOULD HAVE PROTECTED THE GENERAL PUBLIC'S FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH. THIS PROVIDED IMPORTANT PROTECTION TO DONORS TO CAUSES, WHICH WILL ENCOURAGE THE PUBLIC TO GIVE GENEROUSLY TO SUPPORT EFFORTS TO PROMOTE SOUND PUBLIC POLICIES. ON FEBRUARY 4, 2016 THE TENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS UPHELD THE DISTRICT COURT'S DECISION AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF IN INDEPENDENCE INSTITUTE V. WILLIAMS. THE LITIGATION DID OBTAIN AN IMPORTANT CONCESSION. THE STATE AGREED THAT DONOR DISCLOSURE WOULD, AS NOTED BY THE TENTH CIRCUIT, "APPLY ONLY TO DONATIONS EARMARKED FOR ELECTIONEERING COMMUNICATIONS," PROTECTING GENERAL DONORS TO SUCH AN ORGANIZATION FROM BEING DISCLOSED. LAKE TRAVIS CITIZENS COUNCIL V. ASHLEY ON MARCH 14, 2016, THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION DISMISSED A CASE WE HELPED BRING DUE TO A LACK OF STANDING. HOWEVER, THIS DECISION APPEARS TO GIVE A VICTORY TO OUR CLIENT. LAKE TRAVIS CITIZENS COUNCIL (LTCC) IS A SMALL NONPROFIT CORPORATION LOCATED IN TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS. IN 2014, LTCC SOUGHT TO FULFILL ITS MISSION BY RUNNING A SERIES OF FACEBOOK ADS, EACH COSTING NO MORE THAN A FEW HUNDRED DOLLARS, NONE OF WHICH EXPRESSLY ADVOCATED FOR ANY CANDIDATE. EACH OF THE ADS WAS GENUINE ISSUE SPEECH, BUT BECAUSE OF TEXAS'S OVERBROAD DEFINITIONS REGARDING THE REGULATION OF CAMPAIGN ADS, LTCC REASONABLY FEARED THAT THE TEXAS ETHICS COMMISSION (TEC) WOULD ATTEMPT TO REGULATE THE ORGANIZATION AND ITS COMMUNICATIONS AS POLITICAL SPEECH. IN THE LITIGATION, THE TEC TOLD THE COURT THAT LTCC WOULD NOT BE REGULATED AS A POLITICAL COMMITTEE BECAUSE, AS NOTED BY THE COURT, "IT IS A NONPROFIT CORPORATION AND THEREFORE TREATED AS A SINGULAR PERSON, NOT A GROUP OF PERSONS, UNDER THE TEXAS ELECTION CODE." WHILE THIS STRIKES US AS AN ODD READING OF THE LAW, IT APPEARS TO INSULATE LTCC FROM BEING CLASSIFIED BY THE TEC AS A POLITICAL COMMITTEE, AND MAY HELP SIMILARLY SITUATED GROUPS TO AVOID ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS. THIS INTERPRETATION PROTECTS THE FIRST AMENDMENT SPEECH RIGHTS OF SIMILAR ADVOCACY GROUPS. PATRIOTIC VETERANS V. INDIANA THIS CASE POSES AN AS-APPLIED FIRST AMENDMENT CHALLENGE TO AN INDIANA STATUTE PROHIBITING PRE-RECORDED TELEPHONE MESSAGES BEARING POLITICAL CONTENT. PRE-RECORDED PHONE CALLS ARE ONE OF THE MOST COST-EFFECTIVE WAYS A LOW-BUDGET CAMPAIGN CAN REACH VOTERS. THIS CASE IS NOT ABOUT REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS ON THE HOURS THAT SUCH CALLS MAY BE MADE OR THE ABILITY OF CITIZENS TO OPT OUT. PLACING AN OUTRIGHT BAN ON POLITICAL SPEECH DEPRIVES INDIANA RESIDENTS OF POLITICAL INFORMATION THAT MANY WANT TO RECEIVE. INDIANA'S LAW DOES NOT LIMIT PHONE CALLS, OR EVEN THE HOURS THEY MAY BE MADE - IT MERELY MAKES THEM MORE EXPENSIVE. THE LAW ALLOWS OTHER MESSAGES NOT CONTAINING POLITICAL CONTENT. SUCCESS IN THIS CASE WILL PROTECT THE PUBLIC'S FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO FREE POLITICAL SPEECH. KEEPING SUCH A MEANS OF COMMUNICATIONS AVAILABLE IS ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT FOR SMALL ORGANIZATIONS THAT DO NOT HAVE THE RESOURCES TO BUY TELEVISION AND RADIO ADVERTISING. THE NOVEMBER TEAM, ET AL., V. JOINT COMMISSION ON PUBLIC ETHICS THE NEW YORK STATE JOINT COMMISSION ON PUBLIC ETHICS (JCOPE) ISSUED A FINAL ADVISORY OPINION IN JANUARY 2016 THAT WOULD EXPAND THE DEFINITION OF "LOBBYING." THAT OPINION REQUIRED ALL PUBLIC RELATIONS FIRMS TO REGISTER AS LOBBYISTS IF THEY COMMUNICATE WITH THE MEDIA IN RELATION TO ANY PUBLIC POLICY ISSUE OR ATTEMPT TO PLACE AN EDITORIAL THAT WOULD HELP TO SPREAD A CLIENT'S MESSAGE ON PUBLIC POLICY. SUCH REGISTRATION IS A CLEAR VIOLATION OF BOTH INDIVIDUAL AND PRESS RIGHTS UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT. THE CENTER FOR COMPETITIVE POLITICS REPRESENTS THE PLAINTIFFS IN THE CASE, WHICH INCLUDE SOME OF NEW YORK'S MOST PROMINENT PUBLIC RELATIONS FIRMS OF ALL IDEOLOGICAL PERSUASIONS AND SIZES: THE NOVEMBER TEAM, INC., ANAT GERSTEIN INC., BERLINROSEN PUBLIC AFFAIRS, LTD., RISA HELLER COMMUNICATIONS LLC, AND MERCURY LLC. THE FILINGS IN THE CASE INCLUDE SWORN DECLARATIONS FROM THREE LEADING PUBLIC RELATIONS TRADE ASSOCIATIONS: THE PUBLIC RELATIONS SOCIETY OF AMERICA, PR COUNCIL, AND ARTHUR W. PAGE SOCIETY. AS THE OPENING BRIEF CLEARLY STATES, "[THIS COMPLAINT] RAISES THE SIMPLE QUESTION WHETHER A STATE AGENCY CAN, CONSISTENT WITH THE FIRST AMENDMENT, DECLARE THAT PRIVATE COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE PRESS CONSTITUTE 'LOBBYING, AND THEN MANDATE PERSONS WHO SO COMMUNICATE TO SUBMIT TO A BURDENSOME REGULATORY REGIME THAT EXPOSES THEM TO CRIMINAL PROSECUTION OR FINES FOR NON-COMPLIANCE. THE ANSWER, EMPHATICALLY, IS 'NO.'" THE CASE WAS FILED ON MARCH 8, 2016 IN U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. SUCCESS IN THIS CASE WOULD PROTECT THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS TO FREE SPEECH AND FREEDOM OF THE PRESS. |
| CASES IN LITIGATION PART 4 | UTAH TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION V. COX ON NOVEMBER 17, 2015, THE CENTER FILED A LAWSUIT TO DECLARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL A RECENT UTAH LAW REQUIRING NONPROFITS THAT ENGAGE IN ADVOCACY TO REPORT THE PRIVATE INFORMATION OF THEIR SUPPORTERS TO THE GOVERNMENT. WE REPRESENTED THREE PLAINTIFFS IN THE CASE: THE UTAH TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION, THE UTAH TAXPAYERS LEGAL FOUNDATION, AND THE LIBERTAS INSTITUTE. THE LAWSUIT CHALLENGED UTAH HOUSE BILL 43, WHICH PASSED IN 2013. PLAINTIFFS ALLEGED THE LAW SUFFERS MANY OF THE SAME DEFECTS CONTAINED IN THE FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN ACT. THAT LAW'S REACH WAS LIMITED BY THE LANDMARK 1976 SUPREME COURT CASE BUCKLEY V. VALEO. THE KEY DEFECT IN THE UTAH LAW IS THAT IT ATTEMPTS TO REGULATE ANY SPEECH "TO INFLUENCE OR TEND TO INFLUENCE, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY" ANY VOTE. MANY FORMS OF SPEECH ON LEGISLATIVE OR POLICY ISSUES MAY INDIRECTLY INFLUENCE HOW SOME PERSON MIGHT VOTE BUT, UNDER THIS LAW, IT IS FAR FROM CLEAR WHAT SPEECH WOULD TRIGGER REGULATED ACTIVITY AND WHAT WOULD NOT. GIVEN THE BREATHTAKING SCOPE OF THIS PROVISION, IT GREATLY CHILLS SPEECH ABOUT ANY PUBLIC POLICY MATTER AND IS CLEARLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT. THE LAW'S IMPACT IS WORSENED AS ANY SPEECH COSTING MORE THAN $750 IN A YEAR COULD TRIGGER BURDENSOME FILING REQUIREMENTS SIMILAR TO THOSE REQUIRED FOR CANDIDATES FOR OFFICE, MANDATING DETAILED DISCLOSURE OF DONORS WHO GIVE JUST OVER $50. FOR EXAMPLE, IF THE ISSUE OF ABORTION WERE TO BECOME THE FOCUS OF DISCUSSION IN UTAH'S UPCOMING GOVERNOR'S RACE, OR IN A FUTURE BALLOT INITIATIVE, GROUPS LIKE UTAH'S PLANNED PARENTHOOD OR RIGHT TO LIFE CHAPTERS COULD BE FORCED TO DISCLOSE THEIR DONORS AND REGISTER WITH THE STATE BECAUSE THEY DISSEMINATE INFORMATION ABOUT ABORTION POLICY ON THEIR WEBSITE, EVEN IF THEY DON'T EXPLICITLY SEEK TO ENGAGE ON THE ISSUE IN THE CONTEXT OF AN ELECTION OR EVEN MENTION A CANDIDATE'S NAME. UTAH'S HOUSE BILL 43 HAS ALREADY HAD A CHILLING EFFECT ON FREE SPEECH IN UTAH, WHICH IS EXACTLY WHY WE REPRESENTED THESE ORGANIZATIONS IN FEDERAL COURT. UTAH'S LAW IS SO OVERBROAD THAT OUR CLIENTS WERE CONCERNED THAT PARTICIPATING IN ANY PUBLIC DEBATE COULD DESTROY THE PRIVACY OF THEIR DONORS, MANY OF WHOM WOULD STOP MAKING DONATIONS AS A RESULT. A FEDERAL JUDGE APPROVED A CONSENT DECREE ON JULY 14, 2016, WHICH SETTLED THIS LAWSUIT. HIS ORDER PREVENTS UTAH FROM ENFORCING A CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAW THAT VIOLATED THE FIRST AMENDMENT. ON AUGUST 11, 2016, THE SAME JUDGE APPROVED A $125,000 ATTORNEY'S FEE AWARD IN THE CASE. SUCCESS IN THIS CASE PROTECTED THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS TO FREE SPEECH AND ASSOCIATION. |
| Software ID: | |
| Software Version: |