Citizens United v. Gessler
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132655
D. Colo.2014Background
- Citizens United challenges Colorado’s reporting and disclosure requirements for electioneering communications and independent expenditures under Amendment 27 Article XXVIII and the Fair Campaign Practices Act.
- Colorado defines electioneering communications and expenditures and imposes mandatory reporting when over $1,000 spent per calendar year.
- Exemptions exist for traditional print and broadcast media, raising equal-protection and content-based discrimination arguments.
- Citizens United sought a Declaratory Order from the Colorado Secretary of State; the Deputy Secretary declined to extend exemptions, prompting this suit.
- The courtHearings included argument and evidence, and the motion before the court is Citizens United’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction; the court denied it.
- The court applies an exacting-scrutiny framework for First Amendment challenges to disclosure regimes and notes the public-interest considerations underlying Colorado’s regime.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether disclosure requirements pass exacting scrutiny | Citizens United argues exemptions discriminate by form of speech | Colorado seeks to inform electorate with a reasonable fit to her interests | No substantial likelihood of success on merits under exacting scrutiny |
| As-applied challenge to press-media exemptions | Citizen United seeks press-entity status to avoid disclosures | Exemptions depend on form of speech, not speaker identity | Press-entity status not established; exemptions apply as framed by form of speech |
| Irreparable harm | Infringement of First Amendment rights causes irreparable harm | No irreparable harm shown; disclosures are not unduly burdensome | No irreparable harm shown; presumption does not apply |
Key Cases Cited
- Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010) (disclosure is a less restrictive means and subjected to exacting scrutiny)
- Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) (disclosure serves important governmental interests in informing electorate)
- McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93 (2003) (upholds disclosure as informing voters and enforcing prohibitions)
- Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (1989) (content neutrality inquiry focuses on government purpose, not disparate impact alone)
- First Nat. Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765 (1978) (identification of source aids voters in evaluating arguments)