20-1944P
1st Cir.Sep 14, 2021Background
- Rhode Island's Independent Expenditures and Electioneering Communications Act requires reporting and on-ad disclaimers for entities that spend $1,000+ in a calendar year on independent expenditures or electioneering communications.
- Covered activities are temporally and geographically limited (30/60 days before elections; targeted to 2,000+ recipients in the relevant district).
- Key requirements challenged: (1) report to the Board listing donors who gave $1,000+ to a general fund used for qualifying expenditures; (2) registration with the Board (name and mailing address); (3) on-ad disclaimers identifying the speaker and its five largest donors (with opt-out and other exceptions).
- Plaintiffs (Gaspee Project and Illinois Opportunity Project) brought a facial 42 U.S.C. § 1983 challenge asserting violations of First Amendment free speech, associational privacy, and anonymous-speech rights.
- The district court dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6), applying exacting scrutiny and upholding the law; the First Circuit considered mootness (case not moot under capable-of-repetition exception) and affirmed the dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether disclosure/disclaimer regime survives First Amendment review (appropriate standard) | Plaintiffs contend strict scrutiny applies / statute not narrowly tailored | Board argues disclosure/disclaimer laws are subject to exacting scrutiny and serve an important informational interest | Exacting scrutiny applies; statute survives because it reasonably fits an important interest |
| Legality of donor-reporting (general-fund $1,000 threshold) | Forces disclosure of donors and chills speech/associational privacy; general-fund reporting is overbroad | Thresholds, temporal limits, targeting, and opt-outs sufficiently narrow scope to serve informational interest | Reporting requirement is narrowly tailored and constitutional |
| On-ad disclaimer requiring identification of speaker and top five donors | Demands compelled speech; redundant and burdensome; risks harassment and misleading impressions | On-ad donor info is efficient, informative, and tied to the state's interest; opt-outs and reporting limits mitigate harms | On-ad disclaimer (including top-five donors) withstands exacting scrutiny and is not unconstitutional compelled speech |
| Claims invoking McIntyre / NAACP / compelled-speech precedent | Analogizes to McIntyre (anonymous pamphlets) and NAACP (membership-list disclosure) to show unconstitutional intrusion | Election-related disclosures are distinct (money <-> pamphlets); plaintiffs offered no factual showing of threats/harassment like NAACP | McIntyre and NAACP inapposite here; no plausible as-applied showing of probable harassment; facial challenge fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010) (upheld disclosure/disclaimer framework; recognized informational interest of electorate)
- Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) (disclosure justified to inform voters where campaign money comes from)
- McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93 (2003) (upheld BCRA disclosure provisions tied to electioneering communications)
- Nat'l Org. for Marriage v. McKee, 649 F.3d 34 (1st Cir. 2011) (applied exacting scrutiny to Maine disclosure/disclaimer scheme; emphasized voter informational interest)
- McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n, 514 U.S. 334 (1995) (distinguished: protects anonymous pamphleteering but does not control limited election-disclosure regimes)
- NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449 (1958) (membership-list disclosure invalidated where evidence showed likely reprisals; distinguished on facts)
- Ams. for Prosperity Found. v. Bonta, 141 S. Ct. 2373 (2021) (refined exacting-scrutiny fit requirement; distinguished because that case involved broader non-election disclosure regime)