Case 1:15-cv-01241-CRC-SS-TSC Document 33 Filed 02/11/16 Page 1 of 87 United States District Court District of Columbia Republican Party of Louisiana et al., Plaintiffs v. Civil Case No. 15-cv-1241-CRC-SS-TSC Federal Election Commission, THREE-JUDGE COURT Defendant ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment Plaintiffs move for summary judgment on all counts in their Verified Complaint for Declara- tory and Injunctive Relief (Doc. 1) and request oral argument. In support, Plaintiffs file herewith • Plaintiffs’ Memorandum Supporting Their Motion for Summary Judgment, • Plaintiffs’ Statement of Undisputed Facts, • Exhibit 1, and • Plaintiffs’ Proposed Order. Respectfully submitted, /s/ James Bopp, Jr. James Bopp, Jr., Bar #CO 0041 [email protected] Richard E. Coleson* [email protected] *Corrine L. Purvis,* [email protected] THE BOPP LAW FIRM, PC 1 South Sixth Street Terre Haute, IN 47807-3510 812/232-2434 telephone 812/235-3685 facsimile Counsel for Plaintiffs *Admitted Pro Hac Vice Plaintiffs’ Summary-Judgment Motion 1 Case 1:15-cv-01241-CRC-SS-TSC Document 33 Filed 02/11/16 Page 2 of 87 Certificate of Service I certify that on February 11, 2016, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will notify: Charles Kitcher, [email protected] Gregory John Mueller, [email protected] Harry Jacobs Summers, [email protected] Kevin Deeley, [email protected] Seth E. Nesin, [email protected] Counsel for Defendant FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 999 E Street, NW Washington, DC 20463 202/694-1650. /s/ James Bopp, Jr. James Bopp, Jr., DC Bar #CO 0041 Case 1:15-cv-01241-CRC-SS-TSC Document 33 Filed 02/11/16 Page 3 of 87 United States District Court District of Columbia Republican Party of Louisiana et al., Plaintiffs v. Civil Case No. 15-cv-1241-CRC-SS-TSC Federal Election Commission, THREE-JUDGE COURT Defendant ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED Plaintiffs’ Memorandum Supporting Their Motion for Summary Judgment James Bopp, Jr., Bar #CO 0041 [email protected] Richard E. Coleson* [email protected] Corrine L. Purvis* [email protected] THE BOPP LAW FIRM, PC 1 South Sixth Street Terre Haute, IN 47807-3510 812/232-2434 telephone 812/235-3685 facsimile Counsel for Plaintiffs *Admitted Pro Hac Vice Plaintiffs’ Summary-Judgment Memo Case 1:15-cv-01241-CRC-SS-TSC Document 33 Filed 02/11/16 Page 4 of 87 Table of Contents Table of Authorities. iii Introduction. 1 Facts. 3 Argument. 14 I. Standard of Review & Scrutiny: FEC Must Prove a “Fit” to Quid-Pro-Quo Corruption..14 A. McConnell’s Scrutiny Analysis Neither Applies Nor Controls.. 15 B. McCutcheon Controls the Contribution Context, Requiring a “Fit” to Narrow Cor- ruption... 16 C. Citizens United’s Strict Scrutiny Controls the Independent-Communication Context.. 17 II. Only Narrow “Corruption” Is Cognizable; Independent Communications Pose None.. 18 A. Challenged Provisions Burden First Amendment Rights. 18 B. The Required Analysis Requires Careful Scrutiny of Interests and Tailoring Based on Narrow Quid-Pro-Quo Corruption.. 22 C. Independent-Expenditure Cases Hold that Independence Removes Corruption.. 26 D. Political Parties’ Independent Activities Are Also Non-Corrupting... 27 1. IE-PAC Case Statements Distinguishing Party-Committees Are Dicta.. 28 2. Party-Committee Coordination with Candidates May Not Be Presumed... 28 3. What the Colorado Cases and McConnell Really Said Supports Plaintiffs.. 33 III. The Challenged Provisions Are Unconstitutional, as Applied and Facially.. 36 A. The Challenged Provisions Are Unconstitutional as Applied in Count I.. 37 B. The Challenged Provisions Are Unconstitutional as Applied in Count II.. 40 C. The Challenged Provisions Are Unconstitutional as Applied in Count III... 42 D. The Challenged Provisions Are Unconstitutional Facially (Count IV).. 44 Conclusion. 45 Plaintiffs’ Summary-Judgment Memo i Case 1:15-cv-01241-CRC-SS-TSC Document 33 Filed 02/11/16 Page 5 of 87 Table of Authorities Cases Ariz. Free Enter. Club’s Freedom PAC v. Bennett, 131 S.Ct. 2806 (2011). 24 Brown v. Hartlage, 456 U.S. 45 (1982). 24 *Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976).. passim Carey v. FEC, 791 F. Supp. 2d 121 (D.D.C. 2011). 26 *Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010). passim Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. FEC, 518 U.S. 604 (1996) . 2, 16, 24-25, 27-34 EMILY’s List v. FEC, 581 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2009). 26 Evans v. United States, 504 U.S. 255 (1992). 24 FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee, 41 F. Supp. 2d 1197 (D. Colo. 1999). 34 FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee, 213 F.3d 1221 (10th Cir. 2000) . 34 *FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee, 533 U.S. 431 (2001) . passim FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee, 839 F. Supp. 1488 (D. Col. 1993) . 16, 32 FEC v. Nat’l Conservative PAC, 470 U.S. 480 (1985). 24, 29-30 *FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, 551 U.S. 449 (2007). 19, 22 First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765 (1978). 24, 30 Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188 (1977).. 1, 2 McConnell v. FEC, 251 F. Supp. 2d 176 (D.D.C. 2003). 1, 25, 37, 44 *McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93 (2003).. passim McCormick v. United States, 500 U.S. 257 (1991). 24 *McCutcheon v. FEC, 134 S.Ct. 1434 (2014). passim Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, 536 U.S. 765 (2002).. 40 Plaintiffs’ Summary-Judgment Memo ii Case 1:15-cv-01241-CRC-SS-TSC Document 33 Filed 02/11/16 Page 6 of 87 RNC v. FEC, 561 U.S. 1040 (2010).. 25 RNC v. FEC, 698 F. Supp. 2d 150 (D.D.C. 2010). 25 RNC v. FEC, No. 14-0853 (D.D.C., voluntarily dismissed 2014) . 20 Shays v. FEC, 528 F.3d 914 (D.C. Cir. 2008). 4, 38-39 *SpeechNow.org v. FEC, 599 F.3d 686 (D.C. Cir. 2010).. 2, 20, 25-27, 31, 33 Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359 (1931). 24 Wisconsin Right to Life v. FEC, 546 U.S. 410 (2006). 22 Constitutions, Statutes & Rules 11 C.F.R. 100.16. 31 11 C.F.R. 100.24. 1 11 C.F.R. 100.24(a)(2)(i)(A). 8 11 C.F.R. 100.24(a)(3)(i)(A). 8 11 C.F.R. 100.24(a)(4). 11 11 C.F.R. 100.24(b)(3). 39-40 11 C.F.R. 100.24(c)(7). 9-10 11 C.F.R. 100.25. 11 11 C.F.R. 100.26. 4, 11, 39-40 11 C.F.R. 100.5(e)(4). 3 11 C.F.R. 109.21. 31 11 C.F.R. 109.30. 8, 29 11 C.F.R. 109.37. 8, 29, 31 11 C.F.R. 300.2(g). 1 11 C.F.R. 300.2(k). 1 11 C.F.R. 300.30(c). 3, 21 11 C.F.R. 300.31. 3 Plaintiffs’ Summary-Judgment Memo iii Case 1:15-cv-01241-CRC-SS-TSC Document 33 Filed 02/11/16 Page 7 of 87 11 C.F.R. 300.32. ..