.08-205

In The

Supreme Court of the United StatesSupreme Court of the United StatesSupreme Court of the United StatesSupreme Court of the United StatesSupreme Court of the United States

CITIZENS UNITED,

Appellant

, v.FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

Appellee

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF OF THE SUNLIGHTFOUNDATION, THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE ONMONEY IN STATE POLITICS AND THE CENTERFOR CIVIC RESPONSIBILITY AS

AMICI CURIAE

IN SUPPORT OF APPELLEE

Becker Gallagher

Cincinnati, OH

Washington, D.C.

800.890.5001

July 31, 2009

ARY

S. S

TEIN

Counsel of Record

ASHMAN

TEIN

, P.C.C

OURT

LAZA

OUTH

21 M

AIN

TREET

, S

UITE

100H

ACKENSACK

, N

ERSEY

07601(201) 488-8200

E-mail: gstein@pashmanstein.com

Counsel for Amici Curiae

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES..................iiiINTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE..............1SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT.................2 ARGUMENT..............................5I.A DECISION OVERRULING AUSTIN AND/OR THAT ASPECT OFMCCONNELL ADDRESSING BCRA’SFACIAL VALIDITY WOULDINCREASE EXISTINGUNCERTAINTY AND CONFUSION AMONG LOWER COURTS ABOUTTHE CONSTITUTIONALITY OFSTATE CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURESTATUTES.......................5II.BUCKLEY V. VALEO’S LIMITATIONON CONGRESSIONAL POWER TOMANDATE DISCLOSURE OFINDEPENDENT CAMPAIGNEXPENDITURES WAS NOTCONSTITUTIONALLY IMPOSED ANDOTHER DECISIONS HAVE CLARIFIEDTHE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICHSUCH DISCLOSURE CAN BEREQUIRED.......................9III.UNLIKE THE DISCLOSUREPROVISIONS INVALIDATED IN DAVIS V. FEC, THE BCRA DISCLOSUREPROVISIONS SUPPLEMENT THE

iiBLACKOUT PROVISIONS OF § 203 BY INFORMING THE PUBLIC ABOUTISSUE ADS INSULATED FROMPROHIBITION BY WRTL II AND BY FACILITATING FEC REGULATION.12CONCLUSION...........................15