Mass. Fiscal Alliance v. Sullivan, CIVIL ACTION NO. 18-12119-RWZ
Decision Date | 06 November 2018 |
Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 18-12119-RWZ |
Parties | MASSACHUSETTS FISCAL ALLIANCE v. MICHAEL SULLIVAN, et al. |
Court | United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. District of Massachusetts |
ZOBEL, S.D.J.
Plaintiff Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance challenges the constitutionality of certain Massachusetts campaign finance laws.1 Now before me is plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, Docket # 8, which seeks to enjoin enforcement of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 55, § 18G's "statement of responsibility," "top five contributors," and "OCPF website" requirements as applied to plaintiff's proposed election-related communications.2
Plaintiff is a "nonpartisan, nonprofit corporation organized under 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(4)" which "advocates for fiscal responsibility on the part of the Massachusettsstate government, for transparency and accountability, and for increased economic opportunity for all people of the Commonwealth." See Docket # 1 at ¶ 12.3
As part of its mission to "educat[e] the people of the Commonwealth about the activities of their state government," plaintiff seeks to air television, radio, and internet advertisements and disseminate direct mail in advance of the November 6, 2018 elections. See id. ¶¶ 23, 28-37. Since, inter alia, these communications will name a candidate and be disseminated within the 90-day period preceding the election, plaintiff concedes that they constitute "electioneering communications" subject to the requirements of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 55, § 18G. See Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 55, § 1. Rather than comply with the provisions therein, plaintiff alleges that it will choose to remain silent absent an injunction by this court.4
A. Challenged Aspects of Ch. 55, § 18G
Plaintiff's claims concern three aspects of Section 18G. As noted above, the law only applies to a narrow category of communications: those which (1) name a candidate seeking election; and (2) are publicly distributed in the 90-day window preceding an election. See Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 55, § 18G. When both of these conditions are met, as would be the case with the advertisements at issue in this case, Section 18G imposes the three requirements that plaintiff challenges.
First, the law requires that a "statement of responsibility" accompany radio,television, and internet advertisements. For both radio and television, "the chairman or principal officer of the group or association" must state "I am ___ (name) the ___ (office held) of ___ (name of corporation, group, association or labor union) and ___ (name of corporation, group, association or labor union) approves and paid for this message." Id. In television advertisements, the statement must "be conveyed by an unobscured, full-scene view of the person making the statement." Id. For internet advertisements, the statement must "appear in a clearly readable manner with a reasonable degree of color contrast between the background and the printed statement." Id.5
Second, the law requires that television, internet, and certain print advertising, direct mail, and billboards "include a written statement at the bottom of the advertisement or mailing that contains the words 'Top Contributors' and a written statement that lists the 5 persons or entities or, if fewer than 5 persons or entities, all such persons or entities, that made the largest contributions to that entity, regardless of the purpose for which the funds were given." Id. This requirement only applies to "contributions in excess of $5,000 reportable under [Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 55] during the 12-month period before the date of the advertisement or communication ...." Id.
___Third, and finally, the law mandates that non-radio ads must "include a written statement ... that directs viewers to the official web address of the office of campaign and political finance." Id.; see 970 C.M.R. § 2.20(7) ( ).
When considering a motion for a preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order, the court weighs four factors: "(1) the plaintiff's likelihood of success on the merits; (2) the potential for irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction; (3) whether issuing the injunction will burden the defendants less than denying an injunction would burden the plaintiffs; and (4) the effect, if any, on the public interest." Sindicato Puertorriqueno de Trabajadores v. Fortuno, 699 F.3d 1, 10 (1st Cir. 2012) (quoting Jean v. Massachusetts State Police, 492 F.3d 24, 26-27 (1st Cir. 2007)). "Likelihood of success is the main bearing wall of the four-factor framework," Ross-Simons of Warwick, Inc. v. Baccarat, Inc., 102 F.3d 12, 16 (1st Cir. 1996), especially in the First Amendment context. See Sindicato, 699 F.3d at 10.
At the outset, I am persuaded that all the challenged provisions are subject to "exacting scrutiny." See Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310, 366-67 (2010). Under that standard, a court will sustain the constitutionality of a law that bears a "substantial relation" to a "sufficiently important" governmental interest. Id. Exacting scrutiny does not require the government to select the least restrictive means of achieving its goal. See Del. Strong Families v. Attorney Gen. of Del., 793 F.3d 304, 309 n.4 (3d Cir. 2015).
Plaintiff's argument for strict scrutiny, the higher criterion of judicial review, is unavailing. The challenged laws are not substantially different from the disclaimer anddisclosure regimes ordinarily subjected to exacting scrutiny. See Citizens United, 558 U.S. at 368; Nat'l Org. for Marriage v. McKee ("NOM"), 649 F.3d 34, 61 (1st Cir. 2011). Most crucially, the laws in issue "neither erect a barrier to political speech nor limit its quantity." Cf. NOM, 649 F.3d at 41. As a "less restrictive alternative to more comprehensive regulations of speech," campaign finance disclosure laws like Section 18G are therefore properly subject to exacting—not strict—scrutiny. Citizens United, 558 U.S. at 368.
The Commonwealth asserts that Section 18G's scheme provides "the electorate with information about election-related spending sources," including "insur[ing] that the voters are fully informed about who is speaking" and "avoiding confusion by making clear that the ads are not funded by a candidate or political party." Docket # 17 at 15 (quoting Citizens United, 558 U.S. at 368). This is a "sufficiently important" governmental interest. See Citizens United, 558 U.S. at 368; Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 66 (1976); NOM, 649 F.3d at 57; Vermont Right to Life Comm., Inc. v. Sorrell, 758 F.3d 118, 133 (2d Cir. 2014) ( )(internal quotation marks omitted).
As to the first challenged provision, Section 18G's "statement of responsibility" mandate is substantially related to the Commonwealth's important interest in a fully informed electorate. Indeed, the constitutionality of similar disclosure provisions has been upheld on multiple occasions, including by the Supreme Court. See CitizensUnited, 558 U.S. at 368; McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93, 231 (2003); Worley v. Fla. Sec'y of State, 717 F.3d 1238, 1255 (11th Cir. 2013); NOM, 649 F.3d at 61. The specific requirement that plaintiff's chairman deliver the message on screen in television ads is properly understood as a permissible incremental adjustment to the very same disclosure requirement upheld in Citizens United. See 558 U.S. at 368; see also Committee to Elect Dan Forest v. EMPAC, 817 S.E.2d 738, 740 (N.C. App. Ct. 2018) ( ). And although plaintiff argues that the mandated script of the disclosure is too burdensome, the requirement upheld in Citizens United also required use of language drafted by the legislature. See Citizens United, 558 U.S. at 366, 368. Plaintiff is unlikely to disprove that Section 18G's "statement of responsibility" requirement is sufficiently tied to the Commonwealth's interest in informing the electorate about the source of funds and identity of the messenger.
The second provision at issue, which requires disclosure of certain of plaintiff's "top" donors on certain messages, is also likely to withstand plaintiff's constitutional challenge. NOM, 649 F.3d at 57. After-the-fact donor disclosure requirements have been routinely upheldagainst First Amendment challenges as substantially related to addressing this reality. See, e.g., Citizens United, 558 U.S. at 366-69; McConnell, 540 U.S. at 196; Del. Strong Families, 793 F.3d at 313; Ctr. for Individual Freedom, Inc. v. Tennant, 706 F.3d 270, 292 (4th Cir. 2013); NOM, 649 F.3d at 57. Section 18G's "top five contributor" requirement reflects the Commonwealth's permissible determination that on-message disclosure of the source of money behind the speaker is also an effective means for achieving voter understanding and knowledge. Cf. NOM, 649 F.3d at 57. That is especially true given the limited nature of the requirement (it only applies to large contributors of over $5,000, and, as with all of Section 18G, is triggered just for the narrow universe of "electioneering communications"), see Mass. Gen....
To continue reading
Request your trial