Center for Individual Freedom v. Natalie H. Tennant
706 F.3d 270
4th Cir.2013Background
- CFIF and WVFL challenged West Virginia's campaign-finance reporting and disclaimer provisions and definitions of 'electioneering communication' and 'expressly advocating'.
- District court issued injunctions in 2008 narrowing scope; later amended the statute and dissolved the injunctions as moot.
- In 2010 West Virginia amended the provisions to align with prior injunctions; CFIF and WVFL renewed summary-judgment challenges.
- District court held subsections and certain definitions were vague or overbroad, and limited some reporting provisions; it upholding others.
- This court affirms in part, reverses in part, and remands for further proceedings consistent with this opinion, including severing a § 501(c)(3) exemption.
- WVFL did not file a notice of appeal, limiting review of certain challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is subsection (C) unconstitutionally vague? | CFIF argues vagueness under WRTL II standards. | WV maintains WRTL II guidance applies only to broadcast-related ads. | Not vague; subsection (C) constitutional. |
| Is the inclusion of periodicals in the 'electioneering communication' definition overbroad? | Including print media fails substantial relation to informing electorate. | Print media serve informational purpose; severable elements may survive. | Periodicals severed; print media removed from definition. |
| Are exemptions (grassroots lobbying, bona fide news accounts, and § 501(c)(3)) valid? | CFIF challenges exemptions as unconstitutional or lacking standing where applicable. | Exemptions should be upheld as tailored and non-discriminatory. | Grassroots lobbying exemption and bona fide news exemption upheld; § 501(c)(3) exemption invalidated. |
| Does 'earmarked funds' construal of reporting for electioneering communications survive exacting scrutiny? | Limiting to earmarked funds is necessary to avoid broad disclosure burden. | Earlier district court relied on ambiguity to limit scope; no need to adopt earmarking. | Earmarked funds construction rejected; § 3-8-2b(b)(5) upheld under McConnell. |
| Should injunctions be vacated as moot given repealed provisions? | Injunctions moot; prohibitions should be vacated. | Past violations can be punished; injunctions may be dissolved but not vacated. | Injunctions dissolved; prosecutions for pre-repeal violations barred. |
Key Cases Cited
- Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (Supreme Court, 2010) (disclosure acceptable beyond express advocacy; informs electorate)
- The Real Truth About Obama, Inc. v. FEC, 130 S. Ct. 2371 (Supreme Court, 2010) (expressly advocating standard aligned with real truth holding)
- Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court, 1976) (government interests in disclosure; constraints on spending)
- WRTL II, 551 U.S. 449 (Supreme Court, 2007) (functional-equivalent test for express advocacy; limitations later clarified)
- McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93 (Supreme Court, 2003) (upholds disclosure; promote/oppose language allowed)
- Turner Broadcasting Sys., Inc. v. FCC, 520 U.S. 180 (Supreme Court, 1997) (legislative findings required; deference to empirical data)
- Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Gov't PAC, 528 U.S. 377 (Supreme Court, 2000) (evidence supporting regulation varies with novelty; affidavits may suffice)
- North Carolina Right to Life, Inc. v. Bartlett, 168 F.3d 705 (4th Cir., 1999) (vagueness in a prior Bartlett context; distinguished here)
- North Carolina Right to Life, Inc. v. Leake, 525 F.3d 274 (4th Cir., 2008) (context for speak-then-regulate vagueness analysis; distinguishing Real Truth)
- The Real Truth About Abortion, Inc. v. FEC, 681 F.3d 544 (4th Cir., 2012) (rejected broad vagueness distinction; applied to West Virginia case)