Wisconsin Right to Life State v. Timothy Vocke
751 F.3d 804
7th Cir.2014Background
- Wisconsin’s Chapter 11 campaign-finance regime regulates speakers broadly, requiring registration, reporting, and disclosure for activity that includes political purposes.
- Wisconsin Right to Life (WRL) challenged multiple provisions after Citizens United, seeking injunctions against corporate spending bans and related rules.
- This is a remand from Barland I, which held the aggregate contribution cap unconstitutional as applied to independent-expenditure groups and donors.
- The district court partial injunctions were appealed; the Seventh Circuit vacated and remanded to fashion a properly tailored injunction.
- The court scrutinized GAB’s creation of new rules (notably GAB § 1.28 and § 1.91) expanding PAC-like duties to independent, non-major-purpose groups post-Citizens United.
- Citizens United rejected corporate bans and upheld disclosure under narrowing scrutiny; Wisconsin regulators subsequently issued emergency and permanent rules expanding scope in response.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is 11.38(1)(a)1 unconstitutional as applied to corporate expenditures? | WRL argues Citizens United invalidates the ban as applied. | Board contends regulation serves anti-corruption interests and Buckley-guided distinctions apply. | Yes; unconstitutional under Citizens United. |
| Is 11.38(1)(a)3 (corporate fundraising cap for affiliated PACs) constitutional? | WRL contends it cannot be sustained post-Citizens United and Barland I. | Board defends cap as permissible fundraising limit under existing framework. | Unconstitutional under Citizens United and Barland I. |
| Is GAB § 1.28(3)(b)’s second sentence (conclusive presumption that issue ads near elections are express advocacy) valid? | WRL challenges as overbroad and chilling; expands PAC-like regulation to issue speech. | Board urges alignment with Buckley/Madigan/McConnell line drawing express advocacy. | Unconstitutional as applied; second sentence enjoined; remaining text narrowed to Buckley framework. |
| Is GAB § 1.91 (PAC-like burdens on independent groups) constitutional as applied to non-major-purpose groups? | Imposes PAC burdens on groups not primarily engaged in express advocacy; overbroad. | Disclosure for independent speakers justified to inform voters. | Unconstitutional as applied to non-major-purpose groups; survives for major-purpose groups. |
| Is GAB § 1.42(5) (lengthy regulatory disclaimer) constitutional as applied to 30-second radio ads? | Disclaimers are unnecessarily burdensome and duplicative of statutory text. | Disclaimer aids transparency and is tailored to its purpose. | Unconstitutional as applied to 30-second radio ads; injunction to be permanent. |
Key Cases Cited
- Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (U.S. Supreme Court, 2010) (struck down corporate expenditure ban; upheld disclosure under closer scrutiny)
- Barland v. Wis. Right to Life, 664 F.3d 139 (7th Cir. 2011) (aggregate contribution cap unconstitutional as applied to independent groups)
- Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1976) (express advocacy limitation; distinctions between expenditures and contributions; vagueness concerns)
- Wis. Right to Life, Inc. v. FEC (Wisconsin Right to Life II), 551 U.S. 449 (U.S. Supreme Court, 2007) (functional equivalence concept; limits on banning non-express advocacy corporate speech)
- McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93 (U.S. Supreme Court, 2003) (upheld core of McCain-Feingold; express advocacy framework and timing-based restrictions)
- Wis. Manufacturers & Commerce v. Elections Bd, 597 N.W.2d 721 (Wis. 1999) (express advocacy and retroactive rulemaking; foundational state express-advocacy standard)
- Wis. Realtors Ass’n v. Ponto, 229 F. Supp. 2d 889 (W.D. Wis. 2002) (extension of political speech regulation to include 60-day reference to candidates)
- McCutcheon v. FEC, 134 S. Ct. 1434 (U.S. Supreme Court, 2014) (reaffirmed Buckley contributions vs expenditures; restraint in overbreadth/strict scrutiny approach)
- Wis. Prosperity Network v. Myse, 810 N.W.2d 356 (Wis. 2012) (Wisconsin Supreme Court on regulatory authority; initial expectations for 1.28/ultra vires issues)
- Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Inc. v. FEC, 479 U.S. 238 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1987) (disclosure regime rationale and potential burdens on associational privacy)