NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MARRIAGE v. Daluz
654 F.3d 115
1st Cir.2011Background
- NOM challenged Rhode Island's Campaign Contributions and Expenditures Reporting Act provisions on vagueness and overbreadth grounds.
- Focus was on independent expenditure reporting, PAC registration, and contributions/expenditures on behalf of candidates.
- District Court limited inquiry to independent expenditure reporting after assurances NOM could speech without PAC registration.
- District Court found the reporting burden minimal and served the public interest in informing voters of funding sources.
- NOM appealed the denial of a preliminary injunction, challenging the independent expenditure reporting provision as overbroad and vague.
- First Circuit affirmed, relying on its Maine companion opinion and finding no likelihood of success on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the disclosure provision is overbroad under the First Amendment | NOM argues disclosure reaches more than express advocacy. | Rhode Island law disclosures inform voters and are consistent with Buckley and Citizens United. | No overbreadth; disclosure is permissible. |
| Whether the independent expenditure threshold and format meet due process vagueness standards | Threshold and terms like 'support' and 'on whose behalf' are vague. | Terms are sufficiently definite; context clarifies meaning; no vagueness. | No vagueness; phrases are clear enough. |
| Whether reporting to the candidate on whose behalf expenditure is made furthers informational interest | To-candidate reporting bears limited relation to informing voters. | Candidate notification facilitates transparency and allows response; supports regulatory regime. | Report-to-candidate requirement furthers informational interest. |
Key Cases Cited
- Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S. Ct. 876 (2010) (disclosure laws can extend beyond express advocacy; substantial relation to government interest)
- Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) (disclosure serves important governmental interest; informs electorate)
- Maine v. McKee (National Org. for Marriage v. McKee), 649 F.3d 34 (1st Cir. 2011) (companion; same framework for independent expenditure disclosure)
- Vote Choice, Inc. v. DiStefano, 4 F.3d 26 (1st Cir. 1993) (thresholds for disclosure upheld; not subject to exacting scrutiny)
- Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) (reiterated standard for disclosure and informational interest)
- United States v. Councilman, 418 F.3d 67 (1st Cir. 2005) (vagueness standard for regulations)
- Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (1989) (regulations need not be perfectly clear; reasonable guidance suffices)
- Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 (1972) (vagueness standard; average intelligence must have reasonable understanding)