State v. Green Mountain Future
194 Vt. 625
Vt.2013Background
- Green Mountain Future (GMF), a 26 U.S.C. §527 issue-advocacy organization, ran two televised ads in Sept–Oct 2010 criticizing Lt. Governor Brian Dubie (Republican gubernatorial candidate) without mentioning voting or using Buckley’s “magic words.”
- GMF reported ~$534k in contributions (mainly from the Democratic Governors Association) and ~$429k in expenditures the month it was formed.
- Vermont sued, alleging GMF violated (1) PAC registration (17 V.S.A. §2831), (2) campaign finance disclosure/reporting (17 V.S.A. §2811), and (3) electioneering communication identification (17 V.S.A. §2892) for failing to include a physical/mailing address in the ads.
- GMF argued the statutes were vague and overbroad under the First and Fourteenth Amendments and that Buckley v. Valeo required “express advocacy” (magic words) to trigger PAC/disclosure rules; GMF did not appeal the court’s finding on identification.
- Trial court held the ads were electioneering communications and that GMF was a PAC, applied a narrowing construction of the PAC definition, and imposed a $10,000 civil penalty (only for failure to register).
- Vermont Supreme Court affirmed liability and constitutionality (both as-applied and facial issues), adopted a narrowing construction preserving the "influencing an election" language in limited form, affirmed the $10,000 fine, but remanded to allow the trial court to reconsider penalty as to the identification violation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (GMF) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether GMF’s ads triggered PAC status and registration/disclosure requirements | Statutes apply to communications that objectively oppose a candidate; GMF’s ads referred to a clearly identified candidate and thus required registration/disclosure | Buckley requires "express advocacy" (magic words); without them ads are issue advocacy and not subject to PAC/disclosure rules | Court: Disclosure/registration requirements are constitutional; Buckley’s magic-words rule not required post-McConnell/Citizens United; GMF’s ads opposed candidate and triggered PAC rules |
| Whether the statutory terms "for the purpose of influencing an election" and PAC definition are unconstitutionally vague/overbroad | Statutory language can be construed to address vagueness; disclosure provisions serve important informational interest | Phrase is vague and overbroad; needs express-advocacy limitation | Court: Adopted narrowing construction—"influencing an election" means persuading voters to vote for/against a candidate or public question; statute not vague or overbroad |
| Whether electioneering communication identification requirement applied (address/disclaimer) | Identification requirement applies to communications referring to a clearly identified candidate and requires name & physical/mailing address | GMF argued website sufficed; also relied on First Amendment limits | Court: Ads were electioneering communications; web address did not satisfy statutory requirement; identification rule applies |
| Appropriateness of $10,000 civil penalty and whether additional penalties should be imposed for disclosure/identification violations | Trial court erred by penalizing only registration violation and by failing to account for identification violations | GMF noted mitigation (IRS disclosures) and asserted no additional penalty was needed | Court: Affirmed $10,000 penalty for registration (no abuse of discretion); remanded for the trial court to state/discuss whether and how to penalize the identification violations explicitly |
Key Cases Cited
- Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (narrowing construction of "for the purpose of influencing an election" and origin of "express advocacy"/"magic words")
- McConnell v. Federal Election Comm’n, 540 U.S. 93 (upheld disclosure for broader "electioneering communications" and rejected strict Buckley divide)
- Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm’n, 558 U.S. 310 (confirmed disclosure can reach beyond express advocacy)
- Center for Individual Freedom v. Madigan, 697 F.3d 464 (exacting-scrutiny framework for disclosure requirements)
- Nat’l Org. for Marriage v. McKee, 649 F.3d 34 (1st Cir.) (analysis of Buckley, express-advocacy distinction, and disclosure review)
- Worley v. Florida Secretary of State, 717 F.3d 1238 (11th Cir.) (registration/disclosure burdens analysis)
- Human Life of Washington, Inc. v. Brumsickle, 624 F.3d 990 (9th Cir.) (functional equivalence to express advocacy and disclosure upholding)
- Vermont Right to Life Committee v. Sorrell, 875 F. Supp. 2d 376 (D. Vt.) (earlier district-court decision upholding similar Vermont statutes)