Delaware Strong Families v. Attorney General Delaware
793 F.3d 304
3rd Cir.2015Background
- DSF challenged the Delaware Elections Disclosure Act as applied to its planned 2014 Voter Guide distributed over the internet within 60 days of the general election and costing over $500.
- The Act requires third-party advertisers spending over $500 in an election period to file a disclosure report; it defines “electorineering communication” and applies to media including the internet.
- DSF sought declaratory relief and a preliminary injunction; the District Court granted a preliminary injunction, finding the Act unconstitutional as applied.
- DSF previously distributed a 2012 Voter Guide without donor disclosure; the Act was enacted on January 1, 2013, expanding disclosure requirements.
- The appeal asks whether the Act is narrowly tailored and constitutional under exacting scrutiny when applied to DSF’s Voter Guide.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Act is constitutional as applied to DSF’s Voter Guide | DSF argues the Act is overbroad and burdens DSF’s neutral communications | Delaware contends the Act is narrowly tailored to inform voters about funding sources | Yes; the Act is constitutional as applied to the Voter Guide |
| Whether the Act’s monetary threshold is rationally related to Delaware’s interest | DSF asserts thresholds are irrational and overly burdensome | Delaware argues thresholds are tailored to state election dynamics | Yes; thresholds are rationally related to Delaware’s interest |
| Whether the Act’s media coverage is sufficiently tailored to Delaware elections | DSF contends the Act’s media scope is too broad | Delaware asserts media coverage reflects actual Delaware campaign practices | Yes; media coverage is sufficiently tailored |
| Whether the Act’s lack of earmarking requirement affects scrutiny | DSF claims BCRA’s limits on donor disclosures imply earmarking is required | The Act does not incorporate an earmarking limit like FEC regulation previously struck down | No; earmarking is not required and the Act passes exacting scrutiny |
Key Cases Cited
- Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1976) (disclosure under exacting scrutiny; informational interest of voters)
- McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93 (U.S. 2003) (upheld disclosure as part of campaign-finance regime)
- Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (U.S. 2010) (disclosure reaches broader range of communications; rejects narrow view of express advocacy)