SCOTUSblog offers a link
and some commentary on the document here.
I have commented earlier on the question whether the government defendants
and BCRA sponsors will endorse Judge Leon's indefensible reading of the backup
issue advocacy provision. In the government's jurisdictional statement, it
so far it appears that it does not endorse Judge Leon's approach. It first
endorses the "bright line" 30/60 day primary definition of electioneering
communication, and then adds the following footnote:
Although it invalidated
BCRA's primary definition of "electioneering communication," the district
court held that the backup definition is constitutional, while severing the
final clause of that definition on vagueness grounds. See pp. 18-19, supra.
That final clause requires the message to be "suggestive of no plausible
meaning other than an exhortation to vote." BCRA s 201(a) (adding FECA §
304(f)(3)(A)(ii)). Contrary to Judge Leon's determination, that clause is
not "so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its
meaning and differ as to its application." United States v. Lanier, 520 U.S.
259, 266 (1997). In any event, the final clause of the backup definition is
plainly intended to protect corporate and union speakers, and to narrow the
reach of BCRA's restrictions on corporate and union expenditures, by reducing
BCRA s 203’s potential applicability to communications that are not in fact
intended to affect federal elections.
--
Rick Hasen
Professor of Law and William M. Rains Fellow
Loyola Law School
919 South Albany Street
Los Angeles, CA 90015-1211
(213)736-1466
(213)380-3769 - fax
rick.hasen@lls.edu
http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.html