National Organization for Marriage, Inc. v. McKee
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 1770
1st Cir.2012Background
- NOM and APIA challenge Maine's ballot question Committee (BQC) law, Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 21-A, § 1056-B, alleging disclosure/registration burdens and vague, overbroad definitions.
- NOM previously challenged Maine's PAC laws; NOM I upheld PAC statutes, rejecting similar First Amendment challenges.
- 1056-B requires BQCs to register within seven days of exceeding $5,000, file periodic reports, and keep four years of records.
- Subsections 1056-B(2-A)(B) and (2-A)(C) define contributions for BQCs, including solicitations leading to campaign use and context-based inference of purpose.
- The statute imposes a $100 reporting threshold for contributions from a single source in a campaign, tied to informing voters.
- District court granted summary judgment for defendants; the First Circuit largely adopts NOM I's reasoning and upholds the statute, except for brief discussion on the definition of 'contribution'.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 1056-B is unconstitutionally overbroad | NOM argues statute captures non-major-purpose groups outside permissible zone. | Statute targets disclosure obligations, not merely status, with compelling informational interest. | Constitutional; narrowly tailored to inform voters. |
| Whether the $100 reporting threshold is rationally related to interests | Threshold is excessive or not narrowly tailored. | Threshold serves the interest in informing voters and accumulative disclosure. | Not wholly irrational; threshold upheld. |
| Whether subsections 1056-B(2-A)(B) and (C) are unconstitutionally vague | Both subsections are vague by focusing on belief/purpose and context respectively. | Guidance and objective standards provide clarity; application to many communications is straightforward. | Subsection B upheld as adequately clear; subsection C upheld with objective, context-based standard. |
| Whether the standard of review and vagueness analysis are properly applied | Challenging the formulation as vague and unduly chilling speech. | Exacting/less-than-strict scrutiny appropriate for disclosure regimes; guidance clarifies coverage. | The statute withstands due process vagueness under applicable standard. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nat'l Org. for Marriage v. McKee, 649 F.3d 34 (1st Cir. 2011) (upheld PAC disclosure regimes; informs NOM I framework)
- NOM I, 649 F.3d 34 (1st Cir. 2011) (rejected challenges to PAC laws; guided current BQC analysis)
- Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (U.S. Supreme Court 1976) (major purpose test origins; framework for campaign finance scrutiny)
- Wis. Right to Life, 551 U.S. 449 (U.S. Supreme Court 2007) (applies context/background considerations in vagueness evaluation)
- Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S. Ct. 876 (U.S. Supreme Court 2010) (endorses narrow, guidance-based regulation of political speech)
- Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 (U.S. Supreme Court 1972) (requires explicit standards to avoid chilling speech)
- Getman (Cal. Pro-Life Council) v., 328 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. 2003) (supports disclosure as informing voters and regulation scope)