COMMITTEE FOR JUSTICE & FAIRNESS v. Arizona Secretary of State's Office
235 Ariz. 347
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- CJF, a national political organization, financed a Phoenix TV ad critical of Horne before the 2010 election and failed to register/disclose under Arizona campaign finance laws.
- MCAO issued an order under A.R.S. § 16-924 requiring CJF to register as a political committee and comply with reporting and disclosure.
- An ALJ found CJF made express-advocacy expenditures, CJF was a political committee, and CJF violated multiple statutes by not registering or reporting.
- The MCAO Final Decision adopted the ALJ’s findings and ordered CJF to register and comply with disclosure requirements.
- The superior court reversed, vacated the order, concluded the ad was issue-oriented and statutes unconstitutional, and CJF was not subject to disclosure.
- The Court of Appeals ultimately held the ad was express advocacy, CJF is a political committee, and the disclosure statutes are constitutional, vacating certain portions of the superior court judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CJF is a political committee | CJF is a political committee under §16-901(19). | CJF’s ad was not political committee activity; restrictions unconstitutional. | CJF qualifies as a political committee. |
| Whether the ad constitutes express advocacy | Ad expressly advocates against a clearly identified candidate under §16-901.01(A)(2). | Ad does not meet express-advocacy criteria under the statute. | Ad is express advocacy under §16-901.01(A)(2)(a). |
| Whether Arizona’s express-advocacy and disclosure provisions survive exacting scrutiny | Disclosure regime is unconstitutional or overly broad. | Statutes are constitutional; disclosure serves important governmental interests. | Statutes withstand exacting scrutiny; constitutional. |
| Whether the advertising timing/targeting affects express advocacy analysis | Functional-equivalent framework supports CJF as express advocacy. | Timing/targeting are not dispositive to express advocacy. | Timing/targeting support express advocacy under the statute. |
Key Cases Cited
- Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010) (disclosure can extend beyond express advocacy)
- Wis. Right to Life, Inc. v. FEC, 551 U.S. 449 (2007) (functional-equivalent test for express advocacy)
- McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93 (2003) (permitted functional-equivalent approach to express advocacy)
- Furgatch v. FEC, 807 F.2d 857 (9th Cir. 1987) (early express-advocacy framework)
- RTAA v. FEC, 681 F.3d 544 (4th Cir. 2012) (functional-equivalent test applied to disclosure)
- Kromko v. City of Tucson, 202 Ariz. 499 (Ariz. App. 2002) (Arizona test for express advocacy and disclosure)