Center for Individual Freedom v. Madigan
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 18956
| 7th Cir. | 2012Background
- Center for Individual Freedom challenges Illinois Article 9 disclosure provisions as vague and overbroad under First and Fourteenth Amendments.
- Illinois requires political committees, ballot initiative committees, and certain supporters to file quarterly and event-specific disclosures.
- Center claims donors seek anonymity; thresholds trigger registration for contributions, expenditures, or independent expenditures exceeding $3,000.
- Court applies standing analysis, recognizing pre-enforcement injury via self-censorship fear and potential regulatory enforcement.
- The majority analyzes Article 9 under facial challenges, applying exacting scrutiny to disclosure provisions and their fit with Illinois’s informational interest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge Article 9 | Center faces credible fear of enforcement. | Center lacks current or imminent injury. | Center has standing to challenge Article 9. |
| Scope of facial challenge (overbreadth/vagueness) | Disclosures sweep too broadly, chilling protected speech. | Provisions are narrowly tailored to informed electorate. | Disclosures not facially overbroad or vague; substantial relation to informational interest. |
| Ballot initiative disclosures substantial relation | Ballot-initiative provisions are vague and burdensome. | Disclosures for ballot initiatives advance electorate information. | Ballot initiative disclosures are substantially related and not facially invalid. |
| Electioneering communications on ballot issues | Internet and “targeted” definitions sweep too much speech. | Definitions track federal model and promote disclosure. | Article 9’s electioneering definitions are not facially vague or overbroad. |
| Major purpose test for political committees | Major purpose limitation is required to avoid overbroad regulation. | Major purpose test is constitutionally unnecessary for state disclosure. | Major purpose limitation not required to sustain Illinois disclosure. |
Key Cases Cited
- Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S. Ct. 876 (U.S. 2010) (disclosure is a less restrictive alternative to regulation; broad applicability of disclosure)
- Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1976) (distinction between disclosure and expenditure limits; exacting scrutiny for disclosure)
- Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. v. FEC, 551 U.S. 449 (U.S. 2007) (functional equivalent of express advocacy; disclosure framework)
- Doe v. Reed, 130 S. Ct. 2811 (U.S. 2010) (pre-enforcement standing; disclosure upheld under exacting scrutiny)
- McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93 (U.S. 2003) (upheld disclosure and disclaimer requirements; caution against circumvention)
- Majors v. Abell, 361 F.3d 349 (7th Cir. 2004) (upholds disclosure requirements as informative to voters)