¢¡¤£¦¥¤§¦¨ ©¤ ¥ 6XSUHPH&RXUWRIWKH8QLWHG6WDWHV SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN, REPRESENTATIVE TAMMY BALDWIN, REPRESENTATIVE CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, AND REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN MEEHAN, Appellants, v. WISCONSIN RIGHT TO LIFE, INC., Appellee. $# % &' '&% ' % ( ( # "! ! ! ! ! ! ! &% ' % ( )( *# % ! ! !¢ ,+ -./ 01$123.4,5506 6¤4789 ROGER M. WITTEN SETH P. WAXMAN SHANE T. STANSBURY Counsel of Record WILMER CUTLER PICKERING RANDOLPH D. MOSS HALE AND DORR LLP DANIELLE SPINELLI 399 Park Avenue BRENT BICKLEY New York, NY 10022 KEVIN WHELAN (212) 230-8800 WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP PRATIK A. SHAH 1875 Pennsylvania Ave., NW WILMER CUTLER PICKERING Washington, D.C. 20006 HALE AND DORR LLP (202) 663-6000 60 State Street Boston, MA 02109 (617) 526-6000 Additional Counsel Listed On Inside Cover DONALD J. SIMON FRED WERTHEIMER SONOSKY, CHAMBERS, DEMOCRACY 21 SACHSE, ENDRESON & 1875 I Street, NW PERRY, LLC Suite 500 1425 K Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20006 Suite 600 (202) 429-2008 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 682-0240 SCOTT L. NELSON ALAN B. MORRISON PUBLIC CITIZEN LITIGATION Crown Quadrangle GROUP 559 Nathan Abbott Way 1600 20th Street, NW Stanford, CA 94305-8610 Washington, D.C. 20009 (650) 725-9648 (202) 588-1000 TREVOR POTTER BRADLEY S. PHILLIPS J. GERALD HEBERT GRANT A. DAVIS-DENNY PAUL S. RYAN MUNGER, TOLLES & CAMPAIGN LEGAL CENTER OLSON LLP 1640 Rhode Island Ave., NW 355 South Grand Avenue Suite 650 35th Floor Washington, D.C. 20036 Los Angeles, CA 90071 (202) 736-2200 (213) 683-9100 CHARLES G. CURTIS, JR. DAVID ANSTAETT HELLER EHRMAN LLP One East Main Street Suite 201 Madison, WI 53703 (608) 663-7460 @A"B*C<=¤<A>*<D :;<=¦>*? Whether Section 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Re- form Act, 2 U.S.C. § 441b, which prohibits a corporation or labor union from using general treasury funds to finance “electioneering communications,” is constitutional as applied to prevent appellee from using general treasury funds to fi- nance three advertisements it sought to broadcast before the 2004 election. (i) ii BEC>*? <=>*@">*F<B*C@,G<<D? A,H In the proceeding before the three-judge district court, Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. was the plaintiff and the Fed- eral Election Commission was the original defendant. Fol- lowing this Court’s remand to the district court in Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. v. FEC, 546 U.S. 410 (2006), Senator John McCain, Representative Tammy Baldwin, Representative Christopher Shays, and Representative Martin Meehan in- tervened as defendants. 8*4,-6 0I2,1J2K780789 Page QUESTION PRESENTED ....................................................... i PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING....................................... ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.................................................... v OPINIONS BELOW .................................................................. 1 JURISDICTION ......................................................................... 1 STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED........................... 2 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................... 2 STATEMENT.............................................................................. 4 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ............................................... 14 ARGUMENT............................................................................. 17 I. CONGRESS HAS A COMPELLING INTEREST IN BARRING THE USE OF GENERAL CORPORATE TREASURIES TO FUND ADVERTISING THAT IS LIKELY TO INFLUENCE FEDERAL ELECTIONS, EVEN IF THE ADVERTISING ALSO ADDRESSES LEGISLATIVE ISSUES ...................... 17 A. This Court Has Long Recognized Con- gress’s Compelling Interest In Tempering The Corrosive Effect Of Aggregated Cor- porate Wealth On Federal Elections ...................... 17 B. Congress’s Compelling Interest Applies Equally To Express Advocacy And To “Is- sue Advocacy” That Is Its Functional Equivalent................................................................... 19 II. THIS COURT’S PRECEDENT DEMONSTRATES THAT SECTION 203 MAY CONSTITUTIONALLY BE APPLIED TO WRTL’S ADVERTISEMENTS ............... 21 A. The Undisputed Facts Demonstrate That WRTL’s Advertisements Functioned As Election Advocacy ..................................................... 21 (iii) iv B. WRTL Had Ample Alternative Means To Disseminate Its Message .......................................... 29 III. THE DISTRICT COURT WAS WRONG TO REFUSE TO CONSIDER THE CONTEXT OF THE ADVERTISEMENTS............................................................. 31 A. The District Court’s Approach Contra- venes This Court’s Holding In McConnell............. 32 B. A Proper Contextual Inquiry Is Adminis- trable............................................................................ 37 CONCLUSION.......................................................................... 43 v 8*4,-6 0I2,1L4M,8N,2K./ 8/ 09 G*E=¤<= Page(s) Apex Hosiery Co. v. Leader, 310 U.S. 469 (1940).................. 41 Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652 (1990)............................................................. 17 Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) ............................. 35 Brown v. Hartlage, 456 U.S. 45 (1982)......................... 21, 35-36 Brown v. Socialist Workers ’74 Campaign Commit- tee, 459 U.S. 87 (1982) .................................................. 38, 39 Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976)..................... 5, 6, 19, 38, 39 Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942)............ 35 FEC v. Beaumont, 539 U.S. 146 (2003) .............. 4, 6, 17, 18, 30 FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Inc., 479 U.S. 238 (1986)....................................... 6, 17, 18, 30, 40 FEC v. National Right to Work Committee, 459 U.S. 197 (1982)......................................... 4, 5, 17, 18, 39 Heffron v. International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc., 452 U.S. 640 (1981)........................ 35 McConnell v. FEC, 251 F. Supp. 2d 176 (D.D.C. 2003)............................................................................... 33, 37 McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93 (2003)...........................passim Towne v. Eisner, 245 U.S. 418 (1918)...................................... 35 United States v. Automobile Workers, 352 U.S. 567 (1957)..................................................... 4, 5, 17 United States v. Falstaff Brewing Corp., 410 U.S. 526 (1973)............................................................. 41 Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705 (1969)........................... 36 @A,= =¦>E>*;>*<=,EAD"C<H;O¦E>*? 2 U.S.C. § 431 (1974).................................................................... 5 2 U.S.C. § 434.......................................................................... 8, 29 2 U.S.C. § 437h note..................................................................... 1 2 U.S.C. § 441b ............................................................... 2, 6, 7, 29 vi 2 U.S.C. § 608 (1974).................................................................... 5 28 U.S.C. § 1253............................................................................ 1 Act of Jan. 26, 1907, ch. 420, 34 Stat. 864-865 .......................... 4 Federal Corrupt Practices Act of 1925, §§ 308, 313, 43 Stat. 1072, 1074................................................................ 4 Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, Pub. L. No. 80-101, § 304, 61 Stat. 159 ............................................ 5 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-155, 116 Stat. 81 ...........................................passim 11 C.F.R. § 114.10 ........................................................................ 6 O<H? = O¤E>*? P<Q3E>*<C? EO*= S. Rep. No. 105-167 (1998) .......................................................... 7 Judicial Nominations, Filibusters, and the Consti- tution: Hearing Before the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Property Rights of the Senate Committee on the Judici- ary, 108th Cong., 1st Sess. (2003) .............................. 10, 23 @>*F<CE;>*F@C? > ? <= Days in Session Calendars, U.S. Senate, http:// thomas.loc.gov/home/ds/s1082.html ................................ 28 Hasen, Back on the Campaign Trail?, Legal Times Online (Feb. 12, 2007)........................................................ 32 LaFave, Substantive Criminal Law (2d ed. 2003)................ 41 Root, Addresses on Government and Citizenship (1916)...................................................................................... 4 6XSUHPH&RXUWRIWKH8QLWHG6WDWHV No. 06-970 SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN, REPRESENTATIVE TAMMY BALDWIN, REPRESENTATIVE CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, AND REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN MEEHAN, Appellants, v. WISCONSIN RIGHT TO LIFE, INC. Appellee. @B*? A? @A,=3R<O@S The opinion of the three-judge district court, Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. v. FEC, No. 04-1260, 2006 WL 3746669 (D.D.C. Dec. 21, 2006), is unreported and reprinted at JS App. 1a-39a.1 Prior opinions of the district court are also un- reported and reprinted at JS App. 47a-48a and 49a-63a. T ;C? =¦D? G>*? @A The three-judge district court entered its opinion and order on December 21, 2006. On December 28, 2006, the court issued an order stating that the December 21 order was “a final appealable order as to those issues decided in the opinion accompanying that order,” and that there was “no just reason to delay an appeal.” JS App. 40a. Appellants filed a notice of appeal on December 29, 2006. Id. at 42a-43a. This Court has jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to Sec- tion 403(a)(3) of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-155, 116 Stat. 113-114,