National Organization for Marriage v. McKee
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 16542
| 1st Cir. | 2011Background
- NOM challenged Maine’s election laws regulating PAC registration, independent expenditures, and attribution/disclaimer reporting.
- The district court largely upheld the laws but severed the phrase “for the purpose of influencing” as vague, affecting the independent expenditure rebuttal scheme.
- Maine’s statutes impose PAC registration thresholds, ongoing recordkeeping, and reporting, with separate rules for major-purpose and non-major-purpose PACs, plus out-of-state PAC provisions.
- Independent expenditures require reporting and include a presumption near elections; there is a rebuttal procedure to negate the presumption.
- Attribution and disclaimer requirements mandate identifying who financed or authorized communications, with sanctions for violations.
- NOM sought standing to challenge the major-purpose, non-major-purpose, and out-of-state PAC provisions, arguing chill and overbreadth; the court addressed standing and vagueness issues on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge major-purpose PAC | NOM may be chilled if Maine treats it as major PAC. | NOM lacks a reasonable basis to be regulated as a major-purpose PAC. | NOM lacks standing for major-purpose PAC. |
| Standing to challenge non-major-purpose PAC | NOM faces self-censorship; reasonable likelihood of enforcement. | NOM may be chilled but record insufficient for standing. | NOM has standing to challenge non-major-purpose PAC. |
| Standing to challenge out-of-state PAC | NOM organized outside Maine could be regulated as an out-of-state PAC. | Out-of-state status supports standing to challenge the provision. | NOM has standing to challenge out-of-state PAC provision. |
| Vagueness of terms like “influencing” and “expressly advocate” | These terms are unconstitutionally vague and chill speech. | With limiting construction, the terms are sufficiently clear. | “Influencing” narrowed and not vague; “expressly advocate” upheld as clear; vagueness challenges rejected. |
Key Cases Cited
- Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1976) (express advocacy and disclosure concerns; foundations for disclosure regimes)
- Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S. Ct. 876 (U.S. 2010) (disclosure laws valid; information dissemination to voters upheld)
- Daggett v. Comm’n on Governmental Ethics & Election Practices, 205 F.3d 445 (1st Cir. 2000) (upheld reporting/recordkeeping thresholds; relevance to Maine context)
- N.H. Right to Life Political Action Comm. v. Gardner, 99 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 1996) (standing and chilled speech; injury from self-censorship)
- Wis. Right to Life, Inc. v. Barland, 551 U.S. 449 (U.S. 2007) (discusses express advocacy; context in overbreadth/vagueness analysis)
- McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93 (U.S. 2003) (narrowing construction for “express advocacy” to avoid overbreadth)