758 F.3d 118
2d Cir.2014Background
- VRLC and VRLC-FIPE challenge Vermont’s campaign finance statutes: electioneering communications, mass media activities, and political committee definitions as vague and unconstitutional.
- VRLC-FIPE brings an as-applied challenge to Vermont’s contribution limits, arguing independent expenditures should not be constrained.
- District court granted summary judgment for Defendants on all claims; Vermont repealed and replaced the campaign finance regime in 2014, but the court applies the statute in effect at the time of proceeding for as-applied challenges.
- Evidence shows VRLC-FIPE is closely linked to VRLC-PC (a PAC that contributes to candidates); district court found no meaningful separation, affecting the as-applied challenge to contribution limits.
- Court addresses whether the PAC definition and disclosure regime survive exacting scrutiny, and whether independent expenditure groups may be subjected to contribution limits.
- Court endorses Vermont’s tailored disclosure regime and upholds contribution limits as applied to VRLC-FIPE due to functional similarity to VRLC-PC.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vagueness and overbreadth of disclosure statutes | VRLC argues electioneering/mass media/pac definitions are vague facially and as applied. | Defendants contend statutes provide adequate notice and are narrowly tailored to governmental interests. | Statutes survive vagueness challenges; definitions deemed sufficiently precise. |
| Constitutional level of scrutiny for disclosure regimes | Disclosure burdens are overly broad and trigger strict scrutiny. | Disclosure regimes warrant exacting scrutiny, not strict scrutiny, given information interest. | Disclosure regime subjected to exacting scrutiny; upheld as tailored to informational interests. |
| Whether the political committee definition can justify disclosure and whether it is compatible with Citizens United | Major purpose constraint limits applicability of PAC regime. | Major purpose requirement not constitutionally required; regime can extend beyond express advocacy. | PAC definition survives, with disclosure requirements constitutional under exacting scrutiny. |
| VRLC-FIPE contribution limits as applied to independent-expenditure groups | Independence from VRLC-PC should shield VRLC-FIPE from contribution limits. | VRLC-FIPE is not meaningfully independent from VRLC-PC; limits may apply. | Contribution limits may be applied to VRLC-FIPE due to functional indistinguishability from VRLC-PC. |
Key Cases Cited
- McConnell v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 543 U.S. 93 (U.S. Supreme Court, 2003) (upholds limited express advocacy framework and disclosure standards)
- Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1976) (establishes major purpose/express advocacy concepts and disclosure context)
- Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (U.S. Supreme Court, 2010) (disclosure may extend beyond express advocacy and be constitutionally permissible)
- Vt. Right to Life Comm., Inc. v. Sorrell, 875 F. Supp. 2d 376 (D. Vt. 2012) (district court decision on vagueness and overbreadth challenges)
- Green Mountain Future, 86 A.3d 981 (Vt. 2013) (Vermont Supreme Court narrowing construction on 'influencing an election')
- Landell v. Sorrell, 382 F.3d 91 (2d Cir. 2004) (contributions/limits framework affecting PACs and independent expenditures)
- Vt. Right to Life Comm., Inc. v. Sorrell, 221 F.3d 376 (2d Cir. 2000) (VRLC I; earlier challenges to Vermont election laws)
- McCutcheon v. FEC, 134 S. Ct. 1434 (U.S. Supreme Court, 2014) (limits on contributions and anti-corruption rationale context)