• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
In The United States District Court
F
OR THE
D
ISTRICT OF
C
OLUMBIA
 
S
ENATOR 
M
ITCH
M
C
C
ONNELL
,
 
et al 
., ))
 Plaintiffs,
))v. ))
F
EDERAL
E
LECTION
C
OMMISSION
,
 
et al.
, ))
 
 Defendants.
) ____________________________________ 
 
)Civ. No. 02-582 (CKK, KLH, RJL)
Consolidated ActionsBRIEF OF
 AMICI CURIAE 
 THE CATO INSTITUTE AND THE INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE
Erik S. Jaffe, # 440112E
RIK 
S.
 
J
AFFE
,
 
P.C.5101 34th Street, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20008(202) 237-8165(202) 237-8166 (fax) jaffe@esjpc.com 
Counsel for Amici Curiae
 November 12, 2002
 
 
CONTENTS
CONTENTS.....................................................................................................................................iAUTHORITIES..............................................................................................................................iiINTEREST OF
 AMICI 
....................................................................................................................1ARGUMENT...................................................................................................................................2I. G
ENUINE
S
TRICT
S
CRUTINY
S
HOULD
A
PPLY TO
A
LL
R 
ESTRICTIONS
O
 N
E
LECTION
-R 
ELATED
S
PEECH AND
A
SSOCIATION
....................................................................3II. E
XPRESSIVE
A
SSOCIATION AND
C
OLLECTIVE
S
PEECH
S
HOULD
B
E
E
VALUATED
C
ONSISTENTLY AND
P
ROTECTIVELY
.......................................................................................9III. D
ISCLOSURE
R 
ULES
U
 NNECESSARILY
T
RAMPLE
P
ROTECTED
A
 NONYMITY AND
A
SSOCIATIONAL
P
RIVACY
....................................................................................................13IV. T
HE
G
OVERNMENT
’
S
I
 NTEREST IN
P
REVENTING
C
ORRUPTION
I
S
T
OO
-B
ROADLY
D
EFINED AND
M
AY
 N
OT
I
 NCLUDE
I
 NTERFERING WITH THE
I
 NHERENT
D
EMOCRATIC
B
ARGAIN
B
ETWEEN
E
LECTED
O
FFICIALS AND THEIR 
S
UPPORTERS
.........................................................................................................................16A. Democracy Is a
Quid Pro Quo
between Elected Officials and Members of the Public.....................................................................................................................16B. Exchanges Mediated through Speech Are Not Corrupt...............................................18C. Eliminating the Mere Appearance of Corruption, as Opposed to ActualCorruption, Is Not a Compelling Government Interest...............................................21V. A
PPLICATION OF
G
ENERAL
P
RINCIPLES TO
S
PECIFIC
S
ECTIONS OF THE
BCRA.....................22CONCLUSION..............................................................................................................................25
 
ii
AUTHORITIESCases
 
 Bendix Autolite Corp
. v.
Midwesco Enterprises
, 468 U.S. 888 (1988)..........................................2
 Buckley
v.
Valeo
, 424 U.S. 1 (1976)......................................................................................passim
Carey
v.
Brown,
447 U.S. 455 (1980)..........................................................................................25
 Eu
v.
San Francisco County Democratic Central Comm.
, 489 U.S. 214 (1989).........................10
 FEC 
v.
Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Inc.,
479 U.S. 238 (1986)...................................9, 10, 11
Greater New Orleans Broadcasting Ass’n
v.
United States
, 527 U.S. 173 (1999)......................25
 Hurley
v.
Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston,
515 U.S.557 (1995)................................................................................................................................12
McIntyre
v.
Ohio Elections Comm’n
, 514 U.S. 334 (1995)...................................................14, 15
Monitor Patriot Co.
v.
 Roy
, 401 U.S. 265 (1971)..........................................................................9
 NAACP 
v.
 Alabama
, 357 U.S. 449 (1958)..........................................................................5, 11, 14
 Nixon
v.
Shrink Missouri Government PAC 
, 528 U.S. 377 (2000)............................................4, 5
 Republican Party of Minnesota
v.
White
, 122 S. Ct. 2528 (2002)...........................................9, 19
 Riley
v.
 National Federation of the Blind of North Carolina, Inc.
, 487 U.S. 781(1988).........................................................................................................................................7
United States Civil Service Comm’n
v.
 National Association of Letter Carriers
,413 U.S. 548 (1973).................................................................................................................22
United States
v.
O’Brien,
391 U.S. 367 (1968)..............................................................................7
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York 
v.
Village of Stratton
, 122 S. Ct.2080 (2002)..............................................................................................................................13
Statutes
 BCRA § 101..................................................................................................................................23BCRA § 103..................................................................................................................................23
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...