Vt. Right to Life Comm., Inc. v. Sorrell
| Decision Date | 21 June 2012 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 2:09–CV–188. |
| Citation | 875 F.Supp.2d 376 |
| Parties | VERMONT RIGHT TO LIFE COMMITTEE, INC. and Vermont Right to Life Committee—Fund for Independent Political Expenditures, Plaintiffs, v. William H. SORRELL, in his official capacity as Vermont Attorney General; David R. Fenster, Erica Marthage, Lisa Warren, T.J. Donovan, Vincent Illuzzi, James Hughes, David Miller, Joel Page, William Porter, Alan Franklin, Marc Brierre, Thomas Kelly, Tracy Shriver, and Robert Sand, in their official capacities as Vermont State's Attorneys; and James C. Condos, in his official Capacity as Vermont Secretary of State, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Vermont |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Recognized as Unconstitutional
Limitation Recognized
James Bopp, Jr., Randy Elf, James Madison Center for Free Speech, Terre Haute, IN, Norman C. Smith, Norman C. Smith, PC, Essex Junction, VT, for Plaintiffs.
Eve R. Jacobs–Carnahan, Megan J. Shafritz, Vermont Office of the Attorney General, Montpelier, VT, for Defendants.
Cross–Motions for Summary Judgment
Plaintiffs filed suit for declaratory and injunctive relief to bar enforcement against them of provisions of Vermont's campaign finance law. They contend the challenged portions of the law, which require disclosure of election-related speech and limit the amount donors may contribute to “political committees,” violate their constitutional guarantees of free speech and due process of law, U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. Pending are the parties' cross motions for summary judgment, ECF Nos. 166, 168. The Court heard oral argument on the motions on April 30, 2012. As this opinion explains, there are no genuine issues of material fact that warrant trial. On the undisputed factual record before it, the Court denies Plaintiffs' motion and grants Defendants' motion in full.
Plaintiff Vermont Right to Life Committee, Inc. (“VRLC”) is a Section 501(c)(4) organization engaged in educational and political work “ ‘to achieve universal recognition of the sanctity of human life from conception through natural death.’ ” First Am. & Verified Compl. (“FAVC”) ¶ 10, ECF No. 132. Plaintiff Vermont Right to Life Committee—Fund for Independent Political Expenditures (“FIPE”), formed by VRLC in 1999, is a registered Vermont political committee. FIPE's formation documents indicate that it would not “make monetary or in-kind contributions to candidates and it will not coordinate” with candidates. Defs.' Mot. for Summ. J. Ex. C (“Organizational Docs.”), at 3, ECF No. 168–5. FIPE was active in the 2010 election cycle, but asserts that, prior to that time, it had not been active since at least 2002. Although not a party in this action, a noteworthy player is Vermont Right to Life Committee, Inc. Political Committee (“PC”). PC was created by VRLC to engage in federal and state campaign activities, including making direct contributions to pro-life candidates. Defendants are Vermont officials with authority to enforce Vermont campaign finance law (the “State”).
For the last century, Vermonters' concerns about the influence of money in politics have moved the Vermont Legislature to enact and refine a body of campaign finance law governing state elections. See Landell v. Sorrell, 118 F.Supp.2d 459, 464–70 (D.Vt.2000), aff'd in part, vacated in part,382 F.3d 91 (2d Cir.2004), rev'd in part sub nom., Randall v. Sorrell, 548 U.S. 230, 126 S.Ct. 2479, 165 L.Ed.2d 482 (2006). This action relates to two classes of provisions contained in Vermont's campaign finance statutes: (1) a series of disclosure requirements for election spending, and (2) a $2000 limit on the amount donors can contribute to political committees.
The first set of disclosure regulations are registration and periodic reporting required of organizations that meet the statutory definition of a “political committee” (referred to alternatively here as a “PAC”). A PAC is:
any formal or informal committee of two or more individuals, or a corporation, labor organization, public interest group, or other entity, not including a political party, which receives contributions of more than $500.00 and makes expenditures of more than $500.00 in any one calendar year for the purpose of supporting or opposing one or more candidates, influencing an election, or advocating a position on a public question in any election or affecting the outcome of an election.
Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 17, § 2801(4). “Contribution” and “expenditure,” terms used in the PAC definition, are also defined by statute. A “contribution” is “a payment, distribution, advance, deposit, loan or gift of money or anything of value, paid or promised to be paid to a person for the purpose of influencing an election, advocating a position on a public question, or supporting or opposing one or more candidates in any election,” not including unpaid volunteer services or a personal loan from a lending institution. Id. § 2801(2). An “expenditure” is “a payment, disbursement, distribution, advance, deposit, loan or gift of money or anything of value, paid or promised to be paid, for the purpose of influencing an election, advocating a position on a public question, or supporting or opposing one or more candidates.” Id. § 2801(3).
Attaining PAC status creates obligations on the part of the nascent political committee. The PAC must designate a single checking account to fund any expenditure and name a treasurer to maintain that account. Id. § 2802. Within ten days of surpassing the $500 contribution and expenditure threshold, it must register with the Vermont Secretary of State (the “Secretary”), providing its name, address, the location of its bank account, and its treasurer's name. Id. § 2831(a).
In addition to registering, it must file “campaign finance reports” with the Secretary at regular intervals. Vermont elects its state officials to two-year terms, such that every even-numbered year is an election year and every odd-numbered year is an off-year. In odd-numbered years, PACs file campaign finance reports once, on July 15. Id. § 2811(d). In election years, PACs must report five or six times, twice prior to the primary election, twice between the primary and the general election, and once or twice following the general election. Decl. of David Crossman, Vt. Elections Adm'r, Defs.' Mot. for Summ. J. (“Crossman Decl.”) ¶ 9, ECF No. 71–30.
Each campaign finance report must list the name, address, and date of contribution for each person who contributed more than $100, contain a description of every expenditure, and specify any loans, debts or obligations on the PAC's books. Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 17, § 2803(a). The law additionally requires PACs to total their expenditures and contributions for the campaign to date, itemized by monetary and non-monetary contributions. Id. §§ 2803(a)(2), (b). The Secretary makes campaign finance reports available for public inspection at its Montpelier offices and in a searchable form on its website.
Separately, Vermont law mandates disclosure of two distinct categories of election speech. For these categories, it does not matter whether the speaker first qualifies as a PAC. One category is “electioneering communications,” which refers to:
any communication, including communications published in any newspaper or periodical or broadcast on radio or television or over any public address system, placed on any billboards, outdoor facilities, buttons or printed material attached to motor vehicles, window displays, posters, cards, pamphlets, leaflets, flyers, or other circulars, or in any direct mailing, robotic phone calls, or mass e-mails that refers to a clearly identified candidate for office and that promotes or supports a candidate for that office, or attacks or opposes a candidate for that office, regardless of whether the communication expressly advocates a vote for or against a candidate.
Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 17, § 2891. An identification requirement attaches to most electioneering communications, as they must:
contain the name and address of the person, political committee, or campaign who or which paid for the communication. The communication shall clearly designate the name of the candidate, party, or political committee by or on whose behalf the same is published or broadcast.
Id. § 2892. Excluded from the electioneering communication identification requirement, however, are “lapel stickers or buttons,” as well as “electioneering communications made by a single individual acting alone who spends, in a single two-year general election cycle, a cumulative amount of no more than $150.00 on those electioneering communications.” Id.
The other speech category is mass media activities (“MMA”), which covers “television commercials, radio commercials, mass mailings, literature drops, newspaper and periodical advertisements, robotic phone calls, and telephone banks which include the name or likeness of a clearly identified candidate for office.” Id. § 2893(a). In the lead up to an election, certain MMAs must be reported:
In addition to any other reports required to be filed under this chapter, a person who makes expenditures for any one mass media activity totaling $500.00 or more within 30 days of a primary or general election shall, for each activity, file a mass media report with the secretary of state and send a copy of the mass media report to each candidate whose name or likeness is included in the activity within 24 hours of the expenditure or activity, whichever occurs first. For the purposes of this section, a person shall be treated as having made an expenditure if the person has executed a contract to make the expenditure. The report shall identify the person who made the expenditure with the name of the candidate involved in the activity and any other information relating to the expenditure that is required to be disclosed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Grocery Mfrs. Ass'n, Snack Food Ass'n, Int'l Dairy Foods Ass'n, & Nat'l Ass'n of Mfrs. v. Sorrell
...ha[ve] made or hope[ ] to publish.’ ” Vt. Right to Life Comm., Inc., 758 F.3d at 127 (quoting Vt. Right to Life Comm., Inc. v. Sorrell, 875 F.Supp.2d 376, 387 (D.Vt.2012)). To support the unspecific allegations in their Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs proffer no evidence of their members' act......
-
Stop this Insanity, Inc. Emp. Leadership Fund v. Fed. Election Comm'n
...both [PACs], could not believe that his or her contributions to each would be linked.”); see also Vt. Right to Life Comm., Inc. v. Sorrell, 875 F.Supp.2d 376, 408 (D.Vt.2012) (noting that “the structural melding”between an independent expenditure-only PAC and a direct contribution PAC “leav......
-
Ctr. for Individual Freedom v. Madigan
...for Marriage, 649 F.3d at 59, quoting National Org. for Marriage v. McKee, 723 F.Supp.2d at 264; see also Vermont Right to Life Committee, 875 F.Supp.2d at 395, 2012 WL 2370445, at *16 (noting the “peculiar results” the major purpose test would produce inasmuch as “a group that spends $1.5 ......
-
Clift v. City of Burlington
...will succeed only on a showing that the law ‘is impermissibly vague in all of its applications.’ ” Vt. Right to Life Comm., Inc. v. Sorrell, 875 F.Supp.2d 376, 386–87 (D.Vt.2012) (quoting Vill. of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, 455 U.S. 489, 495, 102 S.Ct. 1186, 71 L.Ed.2d 36......