Andrew Nathan Worley v. Florida Secretary of State
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 11995
11th Cir.2013Background
- Challengers sought to fund radio ads opposing Amendment 4; they would form a PAC and disclose donors.
- Florida Campaign Financing statutes require PACs to register, appoint a treasurer, open a campaign account, deposit funds promptly, keep detailed records, report all contributions and expenditures, and allow audits.
- Challengers also oppose the advertising disclaimer requirement identifying sponsors of ads.
- District Court upheld Florida PAC disclosure and disclaimer rules; but struck down the five-day contribution ban as unconstitutional (not appealed).
- Court reviews cross-motions for summary judgment de novo and affirms the District Court’s ruling on disclosure and disclaimer; case is facial challenge, not as-applied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Level of scrutiny for Florida’s PAC regulations | Challengers seek strict scrutiny | Florida argues exacting scrutiny per Citizens United | Exacting scrutiny; upheld Expressly substantial relation. |
| Informational interest in ballot-issue context | Challengers deny informational interest for ballot issues | Florida asserts informational interest justifies disclosure | Informational interest sufficiently important. |
| Substantial relationship to governmental interest | Regulations not substantially related | Regulations substantially relate to informational interest | Regulations substantially related. |
| Advertising disclaimer constitutionality | McIntyre precludes disclaimer burden | Citizens United supports disclaimer | Disclaimer requirement constitutional. |
Key Cases Cited
- Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (U.S. 2010) (disclosure and disclaimer reviewed under exacting scrutiny; information to electorate)
- Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1976) (spending limits vs. disclosure not a ceiling on speech)
- First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765 (U.S. 1978) (disclosure and informational interest in ballot issues)
- Citizens Against Rent Control/Coalition for Fair Housing v. City of Berkeley, 454 U.S. 290 (U.S. 1981) (disclosure broad in ballot-issue context)
- SpeechNow.org v. FEC, 599 F.3d 686 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (upheld PAC requirements under exacting scrutiny)
- National Organization for Marriage, Inc. v. McKee (McKee II), 669 F.3d 34 (1st Cir. 2012) (upheld disclosure thresholds under Buckley framework)
- Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, Inc. v. Swanson, 692 F.3d 864 (8th Cir. 2012) (analyzed PAC rules in ballot context; emphasis on exacting scrutiny)