Could the argument not be made that McIntyre only applies to ballot issue elections and not candidate elections?  Certainly McIntyre stood for the proposition that anonymous speech is only available to an individual using his or her own modest resources.  As the case involved speech involving a ballot issue, and the courts have drawn distinctions between regulating candidate elections versus ballot issue elections, I think such an argument is not without merit.

Charlie Smithson
Director & Counsel
Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board


-----Original Message-----
From: David Schultz [mailto:dschultz@gw.hamline.edu]
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 12:19 PM
To: election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu; jj.gass@nyu.edu
Subject: Re: new CFR case from D. Minn.


I should do a disclaimer in this case and note that I was expert witness
for the State of Minnesota.

To me, the only surprise was striking down some of the disclosure
requirements on the campaign literature, per Macintyre.  I think the
Court got it wrong here and think anonymous political speech only
applies to individuals, not groups.

David Schultz, Professor
Hamline University
Graduate School of Public
Administration and Management
MS-A1740
1536 Hewitt Avenue
St. Paul, Minnesota 55104
651.523.2858 (voice)
651.523.3098 (fax)

"J. J. Gass" <jj.gass@nyu.edu> 11/17/03 10:55AM >>>

The slip opinion can be viewed as a pdf at
http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/courtweb/pdf/D08MNXC/03-09227.PDF. If
you'd like to find the case on Westlaw or LEXIS, the caption is
Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, Inc. v. Kelley, Civ. No.
02-3819.

The plaintiffs challenged a fairly large number of provisions of
Minnesota law, almost all of which were upheld.  The two holdings I
found most notable include the one part of the statute that was struck
down--a requirement that all "campaign material" must contain the name
of the person or persons causing the campaign material to be created and
disseminated.  This failed for two reasons: first, the definition of
"campaign material" was vague ("any . . . material tending to influence
voting . . . ."); and, second, an exemption for small-scale distribution
of materials created independently from political committees was too
narrow to protect anonymous speech adequately under McIntyre.

The other most interest holding, to me anyway, was the court's
following the recent Ninth Circuit decision in Mont. Right to Life Ass'n
v. Eddleman, 343 F.3d 1085 (9th Cir. 2003), and upholding an aggregate
limit on the amount of PAC contributions a candidate could accept.


J. J. Gass
Associate Counsel, Democracy Program
212-998-6281
jj.gass@nyu.edu 

Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law
161 Avenue of the Americas, 12th Floor
fax 212-995-4550
www.brennancenter.org