Monday, October 3,
2005 PRESS RELEASE
Contact: James Bopp, Jr., General Counsel
Phone 812/232-2434; Fax 812/235-3685
madisoncenter@aol.com
Federal Court Enjoins Colorado Initiative
Provisions
The U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado today
enjoined Colorado from enforcing against Colorado Right to Life
Committee (“CRLC”) several challenged campaign finance provisions
passed by voter initiative. Colorado voters added a provision to their
state constitution requiring disclosure of “electioneering
communications,” using broader definition than that approved in
McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93 (2003). The initiative banned corporate
contributions for electioneering communications with limited
exceptions, and defined “political committees” that must register and
meet certain disclosure requirements with a low spending threshold.
The district court declared that, as applied to CRLC, the
corporate ban was unconstitutional for lack of an exception for the
sort of ideological corporations identified in FEC v. Massachusetts
Citizens for Life, 479 U.S. 238 (1986) (MCFL-type corporations). The
court held that CRLC qualified as an MCFL-type corporation despite de
minimis corporate contributions.
The district court also struck down Colorado’s PAC requirement on
the basis of the “major purpose” test announced by the United States
Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976). Colorado required
registration as a “political committee” for any group making
expenditures in excess of $200, which the district court declared
unconstitutional as applied to groups like CRLC whose “major purpose”
is not the nomination or election of candidates. The court noted that
if Colorado “wishes to justify a regulation of corporate political
activity under prior Supreme Court precedent authorizing bans on direct
corporate electioneering, it must demonstrate that the regulated
activity is ‘the functional equivalent of express advocacy.’” (Citing
McConnell.) The district court rejected Colorado’s offer to construe
the PAC disclosure scheme to include the “major purpose” test because
the challenged provision was not readily susceptible to such a
construction.
The district court rejected CRLC’s argument that voter guides
providing candidates’ position on issues were beyond the scope of the
State’s interest because they focused on issues. The district court
said the voter guides were regulable because they influenced elections.
It also rejected some claims made facially, while ruling on them as
applied to CRLC.
“This is a major victory for free political speech and
establishes some clear guidelines in the wake of McConnell, such as the
continued viability of the major purpose test and the scope of the
exception for MCFL-type corporation,” said James Bopp, Jr., President
of the Madison Center for Free Speech, which represents CRLC.
The decision is Colorado Right to Life Committee v. Davidson, No.
03-cv-1454, October 3, 2005). It is available to those with PACER
access at
http://www.cod.uscourts.gov.
To unsubscribe from the James Madison Center for Free Speech
e-mail list, please send an e-mail message with "UNSUBSCRIBE" as the
subject to:
cbostrom@bopplaw.com.