You are on page 1of 35
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE WILLIAMSON STRONG, SARAH BARNARD, JIM CHENEY, SUSAN DRURY, KIM HENKE, and JENNIFER SMITH, Plaintiffs, ve ‘THE TENNESSEE BUREAU OF ETHICS AND CAMPAIGN FINANCE REGISTRY OF ELECTION FINANCE and ‘TOM LAWLESS, PATRICIA HEIM, NORMA LESTER, and TOM MORTON, in their official capacities as members of the ‘Tennessee Bureau of Ethies and Campaign Finance Registry of Election Finance, Defendants. COMPLAINT. Come the above-captioned Plaintiff's and hereby complain against Defendant Tennessee Bureau of Ethics and Campaign Finance Registry of Election Finance (the “Registry”) and four of its members, in their official capacities, as follows: INTRODUCTION 1, This is an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § [983 for declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as damages, to redress unconstitutional attacks on citizens’ rights to freedom of speech, expression, association, and access to the courts as guaranteed by the laws of the United States and the State of Tennessee. These unconstitutional attacks have also violated these Plaintiffs’ due process rights as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. (004932/14534/00394733.DOC / Ver.6} 2, At its core, this case is about a group of Williamson County, Tennessee parents ‘who just wanted to do what they could to ensure their children received the best public school educ ion possible, These parents formed a group called “Williamson Strong,” and they created a website and a Facebook page where anyone interested in Williamson County public schools could post relevant articles and links. They wanted to encourage engagement, so they used their online forums as a destination for lively discussion and debate of Williamson County School District (“WCSD") issues. 3. Naturally, Williamson Strong’s interest in WCSD issues implicated local school board elections. WCSD school board elections and candidates became hot topics of discussion on the Williamson Strong online forums. 4, One victorious school board candidate, Susan Curlee (“Curlee”), did not like what some Facebook users posted on Williamson Strong’s Facebook page about her candidacy, so she filed complaints that Williamson Strong was an unregistered political campaign committee with the Wi liamson County Attomey General, an office with jurisdiction over such a claim, and the Registry, which lacked jurisdiction. The Attorney General rejected the claims in their entirety 5. Despite the fact that the Registry lacked jurisdiction over local election campaign finance issues, the Registry declared that this loose affiliation of parents was a “political campaign committee,” subjected them to multiple “hearings” where they were not permitted to be heard, and fined them $5,000.00. In doing so, the Registry managed to impugn the rights of these parents in a number of ways, including: a. Finding jurisdiction over the baseless complaint; b. Refusing to follow its ovn procedures to continue a hearing so the hearing could be attended by Williamson Strong’s attorney (004932/14554)00354733.DOC / Ver.6} b Issuing a show cause order against Williamson Strong despite the Registry’s lack of jurisdiction and there being no substantive claims presented; Allowing Curlee to submit conjectural “evidence” that did not comply with Registry rules while refusing to acknowledge factual evidence submitted by Williamson Strong according to Registry rules; Refusing to allow Williamson Strong’s attorney to present defensive arguments at any hearing; Finding that Williamson Strong is a political campaign committee — despite never making a single reference to a single expenditure on behalf of a single candidate; Fining Williamson Strong $5,000.00; Punishing Williamson Strong for the clearly exempted behavior of expenditures made to inerease voter turnout; Accusing Williamson Strong of spoliation and destruction of evidence sua sponte, after all hearings had been concluded, based on internet posts that the Registry alleged were deleted by Williamson Strong to hide facts from the Registry—despite the fact that these very posts had been provided to the Registry by Williamson Strong and, to date, are still available online right where they always have been; ding Williamson Strong guilty of violations such as spoliation and destruction of evidence without ever giving Williamson Strong an opportunity 10 address these baseless and spurious accusations; and {004932/14554/00354733,DOC / Ver.6} k. Considering personal political opinions presented and private emails sent by individuals involved with Williamson Strong to be official declarations of Williamson Strong—essentially stripping these parents of their individual identities simply by associating with other engaged parents, 6. The Supreme Court held in Citizens United that any campaign finance rules that limit citizens’ abilities to engage in their First Amendment protected right to engage in political speech must be extremely narrowly-tailored. No narrowly-tailored regulation on speech could produce this absurd result. ‘The Registry has completely disregarded the Supreme Court's holding in Citizens United, and every court holding regarding this issue since Citizens United, by continuing to enforce Tennessee campaign finance laws that were drafted prior to, and are clearly contradictory to, the Court’s holding in Citizens United. 7. Despite never being presented with any evidence of any expenditure on behalf of any candidate, let alone any endorsement of any candidate, the Registry elected to persecute and penalize parents for discussing the school board elections of the very district where their children attend school. 8. Not content with engaging in the violations of these parents” rights as outlined above, Tom Lawless (“Lawless”), the Registry’s Secretary, took it upon himself to farther violate the Plaintiffs’ First Amendment-protected rights of association and access to the courts. Lawless: a. Insisted that 2 higher level of scrutiny apply to the acts of Williamson Strong because one (1) of its members, Plaintiff Susan Drury (“Drury”), happens to be employed by a Labor Union; {004932/14554/00354733.DOC / Ver.6} b. Refused to acknowledge the only evidence on the record regarding said Labor Union, a swom affidavit from Drury’s employer that Drury’s involvement with Williamson Strong had absolutely nothing to do with her employment in any way and that the Labor Union had no financial involvement in any Williamson County elections; ©. Decided without any evidence whatsoever that Williamson Strong member Temnifer Smith was the puppet of a union she has no association with, without giving Smith an opportunity to defend herself against his swa sponte allegation and decision; and d. Determined that Plaintiffs’ efforts to procure counsel to defend themselves against Curlee’s baseless allegations four months after the election had taken place — allegations which should have been summarily dismissed by the Registry but for its members’ abuses of their power ~- should be considered in-kind donations made on behalf of unidentified candidates. 9. ‘The Registry’s conduct has the effect of chilling these parents and all Tennessee citizens from engaging in speech that could be construed as political in nature, lest the Registry fine them for doing so. It also chills Tennesseans from associating as protected by the First Amendment, particularly those Tennesseans that happen to be union members or wish to associate with union members, as Lawless has made it clear the Registry will apply an entirely new level of scrutiny and seek to impose higher penalties for any affiliation that includes just one person with union ties. The Registry’s conduct also chills Tennesseans’ ability to procure counsel to defend themselves against legal accusations, as Lawless has suggested these should be considered ex-post in-kind political donations which would somehow require campaign finance {004932/14554/00354733.DOC / Ver.6} disclosures. As long as the Registry’s absurd result is allowed to stand, it will continue to have a chilling effect upon the speech of these Plaintiffs and all citizens of Tennessee. 10. Defendants’ behavior makes it clear that Tenn, Code Ann, § 2-10-101, et seq., is unconstitutional, both as it is written and as it has been applied by the Registry. ‘Tennessee's campaign finance laws, which have at best facilitated four of the Registry’s members to entertain the notion that they possess the authority to regulate the Plaintiffs? political speech and at worst actually authorized them to do so, are clearly unconstitutional both in light of the Supreme Coutt’s holding in Citizens United and the chilling effect they have had on Tennesseans’ ability to engage in Constitutionally-protected political speech. 11, The Registry’s action has also placed any Tennessee citizen with union affiliations in a disadvantaged class, By concluding that Plaintiff Drury’s union affiliation creates a presumption, one that apparently may not be rebutted, that Williamson Strong is the puppet of Labor Union interests, despite all evidence on the record demonstrating otherwise, the Registry has violated the associational rights of both union members and those who wish to associate with ‘union members. The natural consequence of this articulated standard is that union members and employees of Labor Unions will be exeluded ftom groups engaging in political discussion lest their involvement trigger filing requirements with the Registry. PARTIES 12. ‘Williamson Strong is a moniker used by WCSD parents who disseminate information through a website, Facebook page, and email distribution list in an effort to make it easier for WCSD parents and interested community members to access information regarding public school education in Williamson County. Williamson Strong is an unincorporated, unregistered loose affiliation of persons who wish to participate, Williamson Strong has no {004932/14554/00354733.DOC / Ver.6} membership requirements nor any official members, Volunteers facilitate the group's acts, and interested individuals have the option of viewing the content on Williamson Strong’s Facebook page or website or opting in to receive Williamson Strong emails, The volunteers and other interested individuals affiliated with Williamson Strong follow no organizational formalities Williamson Strong has no bank account or budget. Williamson Strong volunteers also used its online presence to facilitate the organization of volunteers interested in increasing voter turnout of all Williamson County registered voters, regardless of political views or candidate preferences. 13. Sarah Barnard (“Barnard”) is an adult citizen of Tennessee with her residence in Franklin, Tennessee, Bamard affiliates with the loose affiliation of parents known as Williamson Strong (“Williamson Strong”) as a mother of WCSD students who is interested in her children’s educational experience. Bamard helped create the infrastructure for and participated in some of the collective activities of Williamson Strong. Barnard never received notice that the Registry was looking into her individual actions or that her actions could result in liability for hersél. 14, Jim Cheney (“Cheney”) is an adult citizen of Tennessee with his residence in Franklin, Tennessee, Cheney affiliates with Williamson Strong as a father of Williamson County students who is interested in his children’s educational experience. Cheney helped create the infrastructure for and participated in some of the collective activities of Williamson Strong. Cheney never received notice that the Registry was looking into his individual actions or that his actions could result in liability for himself. 15, Susan Drury (“Drury”) is an adult citizen of Tennessee with her residence in Franklin, Tennessee. Drury is an employee of Service Employees International Union (“SEIU”). ‘Unrelated to her profession and solely in her capacity as a mother of WCSD students who cares deeply about her children’s educational experience. Drury helped create the infrastructure for {004932/14584/00354733.DOC / Ver.6) and participated in some of the collective activities of Williamson Strong, Drury never received notice that the Registry was looking into her individual actions or that her actions could result in liability for herself. 16, Kim Henke (“Henke”) is an adult citizen of Tennessee with her residence in Franklin, Tennessee. Henke affiliates with Williamson Strong as a mother of WCSD students who is interested in her children’s educational experience. Henke helped create the infrastructure for and participated in some of the collective activities of Williamson Strong. Henke never received notice that the Registry was looking into her individual actions or that her actions could result in liability for herself. 17, Jennifer Smith (“Smith”) is an adult citizen of Tennessee with her residence in Franklin, Tennessee. Smith is credited with creating Williamson Strong after she reached out to some of her fellow parents of WCSD students who she knew to be interested in their children's educational experiences. Smith helped create the infrastructure for and participated in some of the collective activities of Williamson Strong, and Curlee and the Registry targeted Smith as the designee of Williamson Strong, communicating through Smith and using her home address to correspond with Williamson Strong. Smith never received notice that the Registry was looking {nto her individual actions or that her actions could result in liability for herself. The notice to ‘Smith did not specify was she fad been considered the registered agent of Williamson Strong. 18, The Registry is a creation of the Tennessee legislature, intended to be an independent entity of the Tennessee state goverment. The Registry is comprised of six (6) political appointees serving five (5) year terms. The governor selects two (2) members, a representative of each of the Republican and Democratic parties. Each of the House Republican and Democratic ‘aucuses and each of the Senate Republican and Democratic Caucuses also (004932/14554/00354733.DOC / Ver.6) select a member. The Registry is tasked with enforcing the Campaign Financial Disclosure Act (Tenn, Code Ann, §2-10-101, et seq.), the Campaign Contribution Limits Act (Tenn. Code Ann §2-10-301, et seq.), and the Gubernatorial Inauguration Finance Disclosure Act (Tenn, Code Ann. §2-10-401, et seq.). The Registry is overseen and guided by Bureau of Ethics and Campaign Finance Executive Director Drew Rawlins (“Rawlins”) and legal counsel John Allyn (“Allyn”), neither of whom can vote on Registry matters, The Registry’s six current (6) members are Chairperson Norma Lester (“Lester”), Secretary Tom Lawless (“Lawless”), Kent Coleman (“Coleman”), Henry Fincher (“Fincher”), Patricia Heim (“Heim”), and ‘Tom Morton (“Morton”)! ‘The Registry’s office is within the Bureau of Ethics and Campaign Finance, located at 404 James Robertson Parkway, Suite 104, Nashville, Tennessee 37243-1360. The Registry is collectively sued in its members* official capacities as at all times relevant to this Complaint, the members of the Registry acted under the color of State law. 19, Tom Lawless is the Secretary of the Registry. He resides in and conduets business on behalf of the Registry in Nashville, Tennessee, located within the Middle District of ‘Tennessee, Mr. Lawless is sued in his official capacity because he acted under color of State law when he voted to designate Williamson Strong a political campaign committee and ordered its members to pay a fine of $5,000.00, and insisted on placing a higher level of scrutiny on union members in conducting Registry business. 20. Patricia Heim is a member of the Registry. She resides in and conducts business on behalf of the Registry in Nashville, Tennessee, located within the Middle District of ‘Tennessee. Ms. Heim is sued in her official capacity because she acted under color of State law ‘ Morton replaced previous appointee Justin Pitt (“Pitt”) during the actions described herein, {004932/14554/00354733,DOC / Ver.6} ‘when she voted to designate Williamson Strong a political campaign committee and ordered its members to pay a fine of $5,000.00, 2L. Nona Lester is the Chairperson of the Registry, She resides in Memphis, Tennessee, but conducts business on behalf of the Registry in Nashville, Tennessee, located within the Middle District of Tennessee. Ms. Lester is sued in her official capacity because she acted under color of State law when she voted to designate Williamson Strong a political campaign committee and ordered its members to pay a fine of $5,000.00 22. ‘Tom Morton is a member of the Registry. He resides in Bristol, Tennessee, but conducts business on behalf of the Registry in Nashville, Tennessee, located within the Middle District of Tennessee, Mr, Morton is sued in his official capacity because he acted under color of State law when he voted to designate Williamson Strong a political campaign committee and ordered its members to pay a fine of $5,000.00. JURISDICTION AND VENUE, 23, The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this civil rights action pursuant to 28 US.C. § 1343(a)(). This case also arises under federal law, giving the Court subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 24. Venue in this judicial district is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), as the Defendant maintain its official location within this district; and the events or omissions giving rise to the claims herein occurred in this District FACTS 25, Smith was an active leader in WCSD Parent Teacher Organizations (“PTOs”), and observed that there were a lot of issues impacting WCSD that she felt other parents might want to be aware of. Accordingly, Smith reached out to some parents in her personal network in 10 £004932/14554/00354733,.DOC / Ver.6} May 2014, suggesting they form an affiliation that would take an active role in disseminating information and discussing WCSD activities. Smith decided to call this hypothetical collective “Williamson Strong,” and she and a few dedicated parents began informing other community members of their plan while they discussed the nuances of what Williamson § ong would be and what activities it would perform, 26. Williamson Strong volunteers decided an early and important way fo begin promoting engagement around WCSD would be through a focus on issues in the upcoming WCSD School Board (the “Board”) elections which were to be held in August 2014. 27. Williamson Strong members began reaching out to their personal contacts, letting members of their community know about Williamson Strong, and seeking information from their knowledgeable acquaintances about the educational positions of Board candidates. 28, Williamson Strong’s first volunteer facilitators were Smith, Barnard, Cheney, and Drury. This group initially contemplated publishing endorsements for specific candidates on behalf of Williamson Strong. In accordance with this notion, Smith sent personal emails to her personal acquaintances seeking their thoughts on who they believed would best serve Smith’s known personal ideologies, Several early posts made on Williamson Strong's online forums referenced forthcoming endorsements. However, no candidate endorsements were ever made by Williamson Strong, 29. These active members of Williamson Strong concluded that the role of Williamson Strong leading up to the August elections was best served by a twofold approach: 1) to use easily accessible online resources to disseminate information about the Board, candidates, and how candidates’ platforms might impact WCSD students’ oyerall educational experience; and 2) to increase voter tumout because Board elections held during years without larger State or u (004932/14554/00354733.DOC / Ver.6} Federal elections typically had dismal voter tumouts. Smith, Bamard, Cheney, and Drary ultimately decided these interests would not be served by making official endorsements, and thus declined to do so. 30, In order to meet its first aim of disseminating information about the Board and its clections, the technologically-savvy Bamard and her husband designed a Williamson Strong ee ti website using free software and services during thei 1. They arranged the website so that it was linked to a free Facebook page, where any Williamson Strong participant could post to the Facebook page and have it easily transferred to the website. Barnard and her husband also set up a free email address to dispatch emails to individuals who wished to receive Williamson Strong emails, and a free email service that allowed individuals to contact WCSD officials in a convenient, user-friendly manner. 31. The website Bamard and her, husband designed used the domain williamsonstrong.org, a domain purchased by Bamard with her own money. Bamard also paid nominal hosting fees, which were easily subsumed into fees her family had already incurred through several family websites and blogs. ‘This totaled a sum of less than $50.00 of Barnard’s ‘own money in the months relevant to the August election, an amount she was happy to spend towards a cause she believed in, an online forum for interested community members of all stripes to discuss their children’s education, Bamard continues to make these payments to maintain Williamson Strong’s web presence, long after the August 2014 election has passed. 32, Bamard also paid $25.39 of her own money to promote the Facebook page and help Williamson Strong gain visibility in the short amount of time available between the online forums” launches in late May 2014 and the August 2014 Board elections. Again, Barnard viewed 12 {004932/14554100354733.DOC /Ver.6} this as an investment in her children’s education, as these forums allowed parents to stay engaged in a number of topies impacting the WCSD educational experience. 33. Im order to meet Plaintiffs’ second aim of increasing voter tumout, Smith purchased a voter registration list from the Williamson County Election Commission for $75.00, attesting that its contents would only be used for efforts to increase voter turnout. Smith solicited the opinions of Chad Grey (“Grey”) of the Williamson County Election Commission as to which particular voting records would help net the largest pool of potential voters, and confirmed the legality of her intended use with Grey. Grey informed Smith about which recent election cycles had the greatest turnout, useful information for a campaign to get more registered voters to go out and vote. Grey also explained that Smith could purchase data for all districts at a total cost of $75.00, or she could purchase individual district data at a rate of $40.00 per district. Smith logically opted for the cheaper overall option and the largest pool of voters, two rational decisions to further her goals, 34, Williamson Strong’s Facebook page serves as a forum for interested individuals to post and comment on pertinent issues. Barnard, Cheney, Drury, Henke, and Smith (the “Individual Plaintifis"), were at all relevant times the volunteers that maintained the Facebook page, and they permitted any content that was not off-topic, inflammatory, or harassing to remain on the Facebook page, regardless of the viewpoint expressed. 35, Williamson Strong members continued to reach out within their own networks to steer their acquaintances towards the Williamson Strong online presences, Plaintiffs Henke and Smith also reached out to knowledgeable thitd parties seeking information regarding the elections, usually noting their involvement in Williamson Strong and encouraging these third parties to engage with the Williamson Strong community, 13 (004932/14554/00354733.DOC / Ver.6} 36, Separate from these online engagement activities, Smith used the voter list she had purchased from Grey at the Williamson County Election Commission for phone banks encouraging voter tumout. A copy of the script used by volunteers to make these phone calls was provided to the Registry with a sworn affidavit that volunteer callers abided by its instructions. ‘These instructions specifically forbade the endorsement or promotion of any candidate. The relevant affidavit and script are hereby attached as Exhibit A. These calls were made from a common area made freely available to residents of Barnard’s neighborhood, The voter list was never used for any purpose other than these scripted “get out and vote” phone calls, which never advocated for any particular candidate or policy. 37. “Get out and vote” campaigns and any expenditures on such activities are explicitly exeluded as being considered campaign contribution in the Temiessee campaign finance laws. 38. Williamson Strong members never solicited funds to support any of these activities 39. Williamson Strong members never made a single expenditure in support of any candidate or ballot measure, The bare costs in setting up Williamson Strong’s simple online infrastructure and purchasing the voter list were made by Barnard and Smith, respectively, from personal funds because they care about their children’s education, Barnard also paid to print out “Williamson Strong” stickers promoting their new group. 40. Williamson Strong members never established a bank account or budget for Williamson Strong because money never factored into their grassroots efforts to promote the dispersal of information and act of voting, 14 £004932/14554/00354733,.DOC/ Ver.6} 41. Williamson Strong participants made active use of the online forums Barnard had created. The Individual Plaintiffs posted on these forums in th individual capacities as interested parents. These posts were clearly distinet from any posts made on behalf of Williamson Strong by the Individual Plaintiffs, as the former were made under the Individual Plaintifis’ own names while the latter appeared under the moniker of “Williamson Strong,” 42. No posts published on williamsonstrong.org or the Facebook page using the moniker of “Williamson Strong” ever advocated for the election or defeat of any candidate. 43. On December 9, 2014, Curlee, who had taken umbrage with the activities of Williamson Strong because a number of participants espoused policies opposed to Curlee’s platform, filed a complaint with the Registry, alleging that Williamson Strong had violated Tennessee campaign finance laws by not registering as a political campaign committee and disclosing funds raised and expended on behalf of candidates. 44. Curlee also filed criminal charges with the Williamson County District Attorney regarding the same conduct against Williamson Strong. Curlee further alleged a conspiracy between Williamson Strong and a group of WCSD employees and W-PACE, a political action commitiee with no affiliation to Williamson Strong.” Curlee publicly presented slanderous and unfounded allegations that Plaintiffs had hatassed her children, despite the fact that none of the individual Plaintiffs are aware of having even seen Curlee’s children, let alone interacted with them, and is believed to have discussed this with a representative of the District Attomney’s office mith reposted W-PACE’s endorsement of candidates on the Williamson Strong online forums, under her own name and clearly identifying the listed endorsements as those of W-PACE and the identities of W-PACE’s leadership, none of whom have been considered leaders in Williamson Strong. This was posted by Smith because the endorsement of candidates by a third party group ‘was public news germane to the online forums’ purposes. These endorsements were not presented as the endorsements or opinions of “Williamson Strong,” 15 {(004932/145541003S4733.DOC / Ver.6) 45, In her complaint with the Registry, Curlee alleged Williamson Strong had violated Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-10-108(a) as a person that “failed to file a statement required by law.” A “person” in this provision only includes actual candidates and political campaign committees raising and spending money on behalf of the campaigns of specific candidates. 46, Curlee’s complaint simply identified Williamson Strong as a “politically active group” that had not registered with any governmental entity. Despite containing over 100 pages of content, Curlee’s complaint failed to identify any expenditures that would qualify Williamson Strong as a “political campaign committee.” A “political campaign committee,” as it could possibly pertain to a group such as Williamson Strong, is clearly defined under Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-10-102(12)(C) as “[a}ny committee, club, corporation, association or other group of persons which receives contributions or makes expenditures to support or oppose any candidate for public office or measure during a calendar quarter in an aggregate amount exceeding two hundred fifty dollars ($250).” Curlee’s complaint, attached as Exhibit 1B, contains vast allegations of conspiracies around the United States, but fails to identify how Williamson Strong qualifies as a “political campaign committee.” No expenditures on behalf of candidates or fundraising activities are identified at any point in Curlee’s complaint with the Registry. 47. Curlee’s complaint with the Registry also made the improvident logical leap that because Drury is affiliated with both SEIU as an employee and Williamson Strong as a mother, SEIU was orchestrating the activities of Williamson Strong. Curlee and her affiliates began posting Drury’s personal information online and distracting from Williamson Strong’s efforts with her conspiracy theories, so Drury ceded much of her involvement with Williamson Strong in an effort to take the focus off of her involvement and put it back on her children’s education. 16 {004932/14554/00354733.DOC / Ver.6} 48. According to Tennessee campaign finance laws regarding local elections such as the Board elections at issue, it was the duty of the Williamson County Attorney General to fully investigate Curlee’s complaint. Pursuant to Tenn, Code Ann. § 2-10-108 (c): 49, General is to proceed: All sworn complaints on a statement of a candidate for local public office or a political campaign committee for such candidate must be filed in the office of the district attorney general who represents the judicial district in which the voter resides, Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-10-109 sets out how the Williamson County Attomey a) Ibis the duty of the attorney general and reporter to: (1) Advise county election commissions, primary boards and administrators of elections of their duties and responsibilities required by this part; (2) Provide opinions upon the requirements of this part to the members of the general assembly, district attorneys general, the state and county election commissions, and such other officials who are charged with the administration of this law; and (8) Represent the registry of election finance in any action or lawsuit in any court of this state. (b) Itis the duty of each district attomey general to: 50. (1) Investigate any sworn complaint filed in accordance with § 2-10- 108(c); and 2) Seek injunctions from the chancery courts of this state to enforce this part against any campaign committee or candidate about whom a swom complaint has been filed, if such action is justified. Pursuant to this duty, the Williamson County Attorney General presented ‘ee’s complaint to the Tennessee District Attorneys General Conference (“TDAGC”), which reviewed Curlee’s allegations that Williamson Strong had violated Tennessee campaign finance Taws, among a number of other allegations, and summarily rejected all of Curlee’s claims, Neither (004932/14584/00354733,.DOC / Ver.6} the Williamson County Attorney General nor the TDAGC referred Curlee’s allegations to the Registry to determine if Williamson Strong qualified as a political campaign committee 51. The Williamson County Attomey General and TDAGC’s finding that Curlee’s allegations lacked merit and refusal to refer her allegation to the Registry should have precluded the Registry’s jurisdiction over Curlee’s allegations, Regardless, the Registry continued to proceed with Cutlee’s complaint. $2. On December 11, 2014, the Registry contacted Williamson Strong by sending notice to Smith that the Registry had set a preliminary hearing date of January 14, 2015, to review Ms. Curlee’s complaint against Williamson Strong. The Registry encouraged Plaintiffs to be represented by counsel at this hearing, 53. Plaintiffs’ counsel requested that the date of the January 14, 2015 hearing be changed based on a previously scheduled out-of-state court appearance, but the Registry refused to stay the proceeding, instead voting to issue a show cause notice to Williamson Strong. This was despite the Registry’s own Rule 0530-1-1-.11(1}(a) that “[t)he candidate, designee of a candidate, or committee shall be provided an opportunity to personally appear before the Registry at its next regularly scheduled meeting to show why civil penalties should not be assessed.” 54. In fact, Plaintiff?’ counsel was never at any time granted an opportunity “to show why civil penalties should not be assessed” in any Registry meeting. 55. The two sworn complaints on the Regisiry’s agenda prior to Curlee’s swom complaint against Williamson Strong at the January 14, 2015 meeting had been continued from the Registry’s December 10, 2014 meeting for the very purpose of permitting parties fo attend. 56. On December 22, 2014, Curlee supplemented her complaint with 67 pages of disjointed, annotated emails that did not in any way reflect fundraising or expenditures. by 18 {004932/14584/00354733.DOC / Ver.6} Williamson Strong or any of its members, These documents, like all supplemental documents submitted by Curlee after her swom complaint that similarly lacked any allegations of findraising or expenditures on behalf of candidates, were unsworn hearsay. 57. On information and belief, at the January 14, 2015 hearing, Curlee vaguely alleged that 1) the minimal intemet infrastructure charges personally incurred by Bamard, 2) Smith’s personal purchase of the voter registration information, and 3) the free use of a facility to make phone calls encouraging the act of voting, somehow combined to represent more than $250.00 in donations to particular candidates’ campaigns, which would qualify Plaintiffs as a political campaign committee as defined under Tenn, Code Ann, § 2-10-102(12)(C), Curlee also continued to expound her unfounded theory that Drury’s involvement with Williamson Strong indicated that this group of parents discussing their children’s education was actually an entity that was secretly financed and controlled by SEIU. 58. Lawless was the Registry member to move for the show cause order. On information and belief, Lawless moved to issue Williamson Strong a show cause order because of his articulated stance that any group with a union member’s involvement requires a higher standard of scrutiny than a group without a union member's involvement. Lawless did so despite the fact that Curlee’s complaint and the supplemental materials contained no allegations that Williamson Strong had engaged in fundraising or made any expenditures on behalf of any candidates, let alone any expenditures meeting the threshold of $250.00. Lawless made a motion to issue a show cause order and denied the request to reschedule to allow Plaintiffs’ counsel to be present. By issuing the show cause, Lawless ignored the question of whether the Registry ever had jurisdiction over a purely local school board election, which it did not. 19 {(004932/14554100354733.DOC / Ver.6} 59, In its inappropriately issued show cause order, the Registry alleged that because Williamson Strong, a loose affiliation of engaged patents without a budget, bank account, or any record of solicitation of funds or campaign expenditures, had not certified the name and address of a treasurer prior to receiving nonexistent contributions and/or making nonexistent expenditures on behalf of unknown candidates, Williamson Strong could be “subject to a maximum civil penalty, per violation, of ten thousand dollars ($10,000)...” Williamson Stong was instructed to provide sworn statements that responded to Curlee’s allegations that its members had formed a political campaign committee as defined by Tenn, Code Ann, § 2-10-102(12)(C). 60. Rawlins made a statement to the media around this time that he believed Curlee’s complaint was baseless and the show cause order should not have been issued, but that he is not a voting member of the Registry. 61. On February 2, 2015, Plaintiffs’ counsel received notice from the Registry that Curlee had provided further documents that were supposedly supportive of her complaint. These documents consisted of more emails, again unswom, that in no way reflected political expenditures or donations by any entity or person, 62. On March 3, 2015, Williamson Strong submitted swom affidavits to the Registry from the Individual Plaintiffs, attesting that no funds had been raised or expended in support of any candidates and affirming that the site utilized for the phone banks was essentially considered a free extension of Barnard’s home. 63. Plaintiffs also submitted an affidavit of Ms. Mary Grillo of SEIU on March 3, 2015, affirming that Drury’s association with her fellow WCSD parents in Williamson Strong had no bearing on her employment with SEIU, Ms, Grillo’s sworn affidavit also confirmed that SEIU had no involvement in the Board’s elections — or any other business in Williamson County. 20 (004932114554/00354733.DOC / Ver.6} 64. Curlee arrived at the March 11, 2015 hearing with another 67 pages of unswor additional documents, Again, none of these documents reflected any fundraising or expenditures by any entity or person on behalf of any candidates. Plaintifis’ counsel was not provided with a copy of these documents until after he protested his lack of access to the last minute evidence. 65. Despite the fact Curlee had not previously submitted these documents presented at the hearing, Lawless and Heim demonstrated advanced knowledge of their content through their statements on the record. Other Registry members questioned whether the new content included any evidence of fundraising or expenditures on behalf of eandidates because none of the previous documents had done so. These documents still did not contain any such factual evidence 66. During the hearing, Heim alleged that Plaintiffs had behaved illegally by not, removing Smith’s post from the Facebook page, made in her individual capacity and not on behalf of Williamson Strong, reporting a third party candidate endorsement belonging to W- PACE. Contrary to Heim’s assertion, reporting on political endorsements is conduct that is clearly protected by the First Amendment, and Williamson Strong was under no obligation to remove any third party endorsements posted to its Facebook page or web domain, Smith and all Tennesseans? abilities to report on political endorsements have been chilled as result of this action. 67. At the hearing, Plaintifis’ counsel was continually admonished to stop speaking by Lawless when he attempted to clarify issues or points being raised by Registry members and Curlee, despite the Registry’s rules permitting parties to be present to defend their positons at Registry hearings. Curlee was given multiple opportunities to present her allegations, while Plaintiffs’ counsel was admonished to speek only when spoken to and answer the Registry’s direct questions. In fact, Counsel was ordered by Lawless to not make any arguments and to merely state facts when asked. 21 {004932/14554/00354733.DOC / Ver.6} 68. Lawless stated on the record that the Registry owed heightened scrutiny in this instance because Drury was affiliated with a Labor Union, despite the sworn affidavits establishing that SEIU had no involvement with Drury’s volunteer efforts with Williamson Strong, 69. The Registry collectively acknowledged that there were no records of any financial transactions to support Curlee’s allegations, 70. ‘The Registry claimed that “both parties” had inundated the Registry with further documents, despite the facts counsel for Williamson Strong had only presented short and perfunctory affidavits to refit Curlee’s baseless allegations as instructed and according to the Registry’s rules. Contrarily, Curlee’s lengthy submissions continued her pattem of providing copious unswor documents with no bearing on her claims. Accordingly, the Registry deferred the hearing to May 13, 2015. Counsel for Williamson Strong was not provided copies of these documents until a due process objection was lodged regarding the Registry’s failure to provide the documents to Williamson Strong in order to defend itself against the contents. 71. On April 1, 2013, Curlee submitted a third party’s petition attempting to codify her claims against Williamson Strong. Curlee’s new submission included estimates of costs Curlce claimed were incurred by Williamson Strong that were in no way supported by the record of swom statements provided by Plaintiffs. Curlee never presented any proof of any fund solicitations or expenditures on behalf of political candidates because neither of these activities ever took place. 72. On May 1, 2015, Bamard provided the Registry with a supplemental affidavit outlining any spending that took place to establish the Williamson Strong online forums. This affidavit included receipts and invoices showing Bamard’s personal expenditures. It also {004932/14554/00354733.DOC/ Ver.6) highlighted that she had spent around $40 of her own money on stickers with a Williamson Strong emblem on them. A packet including all Williamson Strong online written posts during the timefiame leading up to the election was also provided as an attachment to the sworn affidavit to demonstrate that no post ever made on behalf of Williamson Strong ever requested that readers vote for or against any particular candidate, These posts also demonstrated a variety of viewpoints existed on the online forums, 73. On this same day, Curlee provided more unsworn documents including price quotes from professional web development companies to allege that the williamsonstrong.org website, created with the bare minimal costs on a volunteer basis by Barnard’s husband, actually constituted a several thousand dollar donation to unspecified candidates, These were received by Plaintiffs’ counsel on May 4, 2015, after the Registry’s announced deadline for submitting sworn documents to the Registry had passed. 74. Plaintiffs provided a new sworn affidavit by Barnard’s husband clearly refuting Curlee’s novel allegations in their entirety and filed it as quickly as possible. The Registry refused to consider this swom affidavit despite the fact Registry Rule 0530-I-I-.11 mandates that “[a] swom statement received less than eight (8) days before the Registry's meeting will have the matter continued until the Registry’ next meeting” and the Registry’s previous continuances to allow Curlee’s unworn documents into the record. The Registry’s ultimate order regarding Curlee’s complaint (the “Order”) demonstrated that this sworn testimony was outright ignored in favor of Curlee’s unswom conjecture. 75, Atthe May 13, 2015 hearing, Plaintiffs” counsel was again denied the opportunity to speak on behalf of Plaintiffs. Registry members Heim and Lester admonished and lectured Plaintiffs for denying that they were a political campaign committee because they were clearly (004932/14554/00354733,.DOC/ Ver.6} politically motivated, without ever referencing what activities engaged in by Plaintiffs constituted fundraising or expenditures on behalf of particular candidates, 76. Heim and Lester referenced specific emails, which were contained in batches of unsworn documents provided by Curlee, sent by Smith and Henke, These emails were sent in Smith and Henke’s individual capacities to their personal contacts covering a number of topics including personal candidate preferences, third party endorsements, the solicitation of endorsements, and promoting engagement with Williamson Strong. The email from Henke that was referenced was sent prior to her volunteer status with Williamson Strong and clearly referenced Williamson Strong in the third person, 77. Despite the fact that none of the members of Williamson Strong ever posted an endorsement of any candidate under the moniker Williamson Strong, Heim and Lester alleged these personal non-public emails, which were technically inadmissible evidence, were somehow akin to spending money on behalf of the election of specific candidates. Heim and Lester opined that while they did not believe Williamson Strong meets the definition of a political campaign committee, the group’s behavior “stinks” and they wished to penalize the group anyway. 78, Heim demonstrated exasperation that Barnard and Smith’s expenditures did not amount to $250.00 to qualify Williamson Strong as a political campaign committee pursuant to Tenn, Code Ann. § 2-10-102(12)(C) because she knew the Registry lecked the ability to punish Williamson Strong without proof of expenditures surpassing this $250 threshold, 79. Heim and Lester also alleged that an unsworn document provided by Curlee, appearing to be a personal email from Smith offering Drury’s voluntary, free-of-charge assistance to candidates she personally knew, and Smith and Drury personally preferred to win, was {004932/14554/00394733.DOC / Ver.6} somehow relevant to whether Plaintiffs had collectively made expenditures or raised money on behalf of specific candidates. 80, Heim declared that the specific voter records requested and obtained by Smith were indicative of politically-motivated intent. Under Heim’s nonsensical logic, efforts to increase the turnout of registered voters during an election cycle with traditionally low tumout should only utilize voting records from the same under-represented election cycle, rather than records fiom far more populated elections, Smith had logically opted to increase registered voter tumout for the August 2014 election by requesting documents showing registered voting during more popular elections, but Heim instead alleged a vast partisan conspiracy was afoot ~ despite the fact the election in question contained ONLY Republican candidates, Heim further stated that despite Plaintiffs’ swom affidavits that the phone calls only encouraged the act of voting, regardless of candidate preference, and a copy of the script used had been provided to the Registry, she refused to believe Plaintiffs’ sworn statements based on her own personal ities to experiences engaging in partisan voter turnout efforts, Plaintiffs” ability to engage in acti promote the basic act of voting has been chilled as result of this action. 81. Lawless doubled down on his statements that Drury’s personal affiliation with a ‘union unrelated to her involvement with Williamson Strong meant that SEIU was orchestrating Plaintiffs’ activities, After Heim made the highly offensive and inflammatory suggestion that a woman such as Smith lacked the mental capacity to obiain useful voter records on her own accord, Lawless concurred and announced that this was proof that Smith’s actions were directed by the SEIU. The only evidence on the record regarding this ludicrous, offensive, and patently sexist theory were swom affidavits stating otherwise, Plaintiffs’ ability to freely associate with 25 (004932/145S4/00354733.DOC / Ver.6) individuals of their choosing, particularly those individuals with union relations, las been chilled as result of this action. 82. Lawless suggested that the Registry should broaden their view of what qualifies as an expenditure, Lawless suggested that the Individual Plaintiffs” volunteer activities should be considered in-kind donations. When this notion was generally challenged by Rawlins, Lawless then made the straight-faced suggestion that the services of Williamson Strong’s attorneys in defending against Curlee’s allegations in fiscal year 2015 should qualify as campaign contributions for candidates in an August 2014 election. Lawless expressed confidence that the Registry could work around the rules to meet the $250 threshold, Plaintiffs’ ability to seek legal representation to defend against legal allegations and protect a violation of their rights has been chilled as result of this action, 83. Under a suggestion profiered by Allyn, the Registry then decided cease analyzing Plaintiffs’ association under Tenn, Code Ann. § 2-10-102(12\C), the operative definition throughout the long and sordid procedural posture, because it necessitated a threshold of $250.00 in expenditures (on behalf of the campaigns of specific candidates). Instead, the Registry used a separate, broader, and facially unconstitutional clause defining a political campaign committee, Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-10-102(12)(A): “A combination of two (2) or more individuals, including any political party governing body, whether state or local, making expenditures, to support or oppose any candidate for public office or measure, but does not include a voter registration progeam.” 84. The Registry concluded that the minimal expenditures made by Barnard and Smith, in order to create a website geared towards keeping parents engaged in the activities of a school district and to encourage voter turnout in an election with historically low tumout, 26 (004932/14384/00354733.DOC / Ver.6} respectively, met the legislative intent for this definition of a political campaign committee, expending funds to promote the election of particular candidates or ballot initiatives. The Order reflected the expenditures Bamard and Smith attested to in their sworm affidavits but also included Curlee’s unswom conjecture regarding costs that had been refuted by Plaintiffs” ignored supplemental affidavit. However, the Registry failed to follow its own procedural rules, and instead of staying the hearing to permit this sworn evidence to proceed, they chose to completely ignore this factual content in violation of Plaintiffs" due process rights. 85. To Plaintiffs’ knowledge, no complaint was ever brought before the Registry alleging Plaintiffs were a political campaign committee pursuant to Tenn, Code Ann, § 2-10- 102(12)(A), and they were definitively never granted an opportunity to defend themselves against this sua sponte allegation in violation of their due process rights, In fact, the Registry refused to allow any argument or defense at the hearing in which this about face on legal theories was announced, 86. Relishing the opportunity to punish Plaintiffs” fictional union affiliations, Lawless decided to utilize the full extent of his powers to fine a group of moms and dads engaged in political discussions because they cate about their children’s education. He swiftly moved to implement two $10,000.00 fines, for a total of $20,000.00, against Williamson Strong for 1) failing to register as a political campaign committee, and 2) failing to file a document with the Registry indicating it had spent $0.00 on the campaigns of any candidates, 87. Lawless’s motion was defeated, with Heim noting that such an egregious penalty for parents who were just “pushing the envelope,” as she termed it, would likely scare most citizens from engaging in the political process. The Registry has acknowledged that a fine would have a chilling effect on citizens of Tennessee. 27 {004932/14554100354733.DOC / Ver.6} 88. Heim then moved to implement two $2,500.00 fines, totaling $5,000.00, against Williamson Strong for the same alleged misconduct, which passed on a 4-1 vote, with Coleman representing the only vote against this patently unconstitutional fine.” 89. No Registry member at any time in any Registry meeting identified any candidate whose election was specifically endorsed through the activities of Plaintiffs under the moniker of Williamson Strong, let alone money that was expended on behalf of these phantom candidates. ‘The Order presented a finding that the expression of political opinions on the Williamson Strong website and Facebook, coupled with personal private emails sent by Individual Plaintiffs in their individual capacities, qualified these infrastructure costs and volunteer efforts by Williamson Strong members as political expenditures against particular candidates’ candidacies. Plaintiffs and all Tennesseans’ abilities to be members of a group but still present their own political opinions have been chilled by this action, This action similarly chills Plaintiffs and all Tennesseans* abilities to make any public or private statements for or against any political issue, lest it be attributed as an endorsement of candidates’ with similar views. 90. No Registry member acknowledged that posts that were positive of Curlee and her positions were posted on the same online forums containing political discussion that supposedly constituted campaign contributions on behalf of specific candidates. 91. The Order included sua sponte allegations of spoliation and destruction of evidence by Williamson Strong. The Order cited several postings that were provided by Williamson Strong directly to the Registry in Bamard’s supplemental affidavit that the Registry alleged had subsequently been removed from the intemet to conceal evidence. Again, these posts that were allegedly destroyed by Williamson Strong to conceal evidence from the Registry were * Fincher was not in attendance. 28 {004932/14554/00354733.DOC / Ver.6} actually provided fo the Registry by Williamson Strong, and furthermore they have never been deleted from the internet at any time and are still accessible to date. One statement identifying the goals of the group was altered to exclude a reference to the long since past August 2014 election in April 2015, but, again, the original post referencing the election that the Registry claimed had been deleted to suppress evidence had been provided by Williamson Strong to the Registry. None of these posts contained -any endorsements by Williamson Strong of any candidates. None of these posts were indicative of any campaign expenditures or solicitations. 92. Plaintiffs have a First Amendment-protected right to associate with each other 93, Drury has a First Amendment-protected right to associate with SEIU and her co- Plaintiffs without having her association with either lead to stricter scrutiny of either group’s actions by a state adjudicatory body. 94, Plaintiffs have the First Amendment-protected right to create a public forum for discussion regarding their children’s educational experience and how the political processes and certain political questions may affect that experience, 95, Plaintiffs have the First Amendment-protected right to write emails or social ‘media posts in their personal, individual capacities stating any political position or endorsement they desire, 96, Plaintiffs have the First Amendment-protected right to use public records to make phone calls encouraging voter participation. 97. The precedent set by the Registry in punishing the First Amendment-protected activities of Plaintiffs establishes that any two individuals who spend any amount of money, no ‘matter how paltry, that ean be twisted as an expenditure on behalf of a candidate or ballot initiative, are obligated to spend $100 to register as a political campaign committee and submit 29 £004932/14554/00354733.DOC / Ver.6) quarterly reports. For example, a married couple who jointly decide to place a political bumper sticker on their family car would rise to the definition of a political campaign committee as established by the Registry. 98. The precedent set by the Registry in punishing the First Amendment-protected conduct of purchasing intemnet services to present ideas, which may incidentally delve into the realm of political opinion, establishes that the costs incurred by every website proprietor to maintain or promote an internet presence that permits more than one person to post content and ever permits the expression of an opinion that could be constructed to be in favor of any candidate or ballot initiative in the State of Tennessee is obligated to spend $100 to register as a political campaign committee and submit quarterly reports. For example, if the website rollingstone.com posts an editorial that shows support for a policy position of Senator Lamar Alexander when he is up for re-election, the proprietors of that website rise to the definition of a political campaign committee as established by the Registry. As a similar example, any church website with more than one contributor that expresses a view on abortion in light of Tennessee’s 2014 Amendment 1 referendum would rise to the definition of a political campaign committee as established by the Registry 99. The precedent set by Lawless in punishing Plaintiffs because of the First Amendment-protected conduct of Drury in affiliating with a union establishes that any group with just one member with any union affiliation automatically faces a presumption of guilt Accordingly, union members are likely to be excluded from groups engaging in political discussion, 30 £004932/14554/00354733.DOC / Ver.6} COUNT I: FIRST AMENDMENT AND 42 U.S.C. § 1983 RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH 100. Plaintiffs hereby re-allege and incorporate each and every allegation set forth above as if fully set forth herein, 101. The First Amendment guarantees Plaintiffs the right to communicate with others ‘on matters of public concem, The Registry’s decision to threaten and ultimately sanction Williamson Strong with civil liability for engaging in public discourse based on Curlee’s ‘unsupported and unsupportable claims has a chilling effect on Plaintiffs’ and all Tennesseans’ expression of this right. 102. Further, on information and belief, the Registry has taken action against Plaintifis because of the Registry members’ disapproval of the content of their speech. The Registry’s actions have a chilling effect on free speech and would deter a person of ordinary firmness from expressing these viewpoints. 103, The Registry was acting under color of state law when it violated Plaintiffs” right to free speech, and their activities constitate state action. 104, Tenn, Code Ann, § 2-10-102(12)(A) violates Tennesseans’ rights of free speech under the First Amendment by making any person who wishes to be associated with any association register as a political campaign committee or face fines of up to $10,000 for presenting their own personal political views. COUNT Il: FIRST AMENDMENT AND 42 U.S.C. § 1983 RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION 105. Plaintiffs hereby re-allege and incorporate each and every allegation set forth above as if fully set forth herein, 31 ¢004932/14554100354733.DOC / Ver.6} 106. The First Amendment guarantees Plaintiffs the right to associate with others on political, personal, and other bases. ‘The Registry has chilled Plaintiffs and all Tennesseans from engaging in this right through its imposition of civil liability for Curlee’s baseless claims against Williamson Strong. 107. Further, perpetuating Curlee’s baseless claims against Plaintiffs based on Drury’s affiliation with SEIU has a chilling effect on Drury, her co-Plaintiffs, and all Tennesseans’ rights of association, as the Registry has singled out those who affiliate with unions as being more worthy of investigation and penalization than others. 108. Tenn. Code Ann, § 2-10-102(12)(A) violates Tennesseans’ rights of association under the First Amendment by making any two people who can be construed as spending money in order to facilitate political discussion pay to register as a political campaign committee or face fines of up to $10,000 per violation. 109. Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-10-102(12)(A) violates Tennesseans’ rights of association under the First Amendment by making any person choose to refrain from engaging in political discourse or being a member of any group, 110, The Registry was acting under color of state law when it violated Drury and all other Williamson Strong members’ right of association, and their activities constitute state action. COUNT Ii: VIOLATION OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH UNDER TENNESSEE CONSTITUTION ARTICLE L, SECTION 19 111, Plaintiffs hereby re-allege and incorporate each and every allegation set forth above as if fully set forth herein. 112. Article I, Section 19 of the Tennessee Constitution provides: 32 £004932/14554/003594733,.DOC / Ver.6} The free communication of thoughts and opinions, is one of the invaluable rights, of every citizen may freely speak, write, and print on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty. 113, Plaintiffs" rights to freedom of speech, expression and the press, guaranteed by Article I Section 19 of the Tennessee Constitution are being violated by Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-10- 101, et seg. 114. By requiring any two people who jointly express a view on political issues to register as a political campaign committee, the Registry is setting a de facto tax of $100.00 on two individuals who wish to participate in the free flow and exchange of political ideas and beliefs. 115. Defendants cannot establish a justification sufficient to regulate Plaintiffs” speech, nor is the statute narrowly tailored to serve any such justification advanced by Defendants. 116, Defendants acted under color of state law when they enforced this statute and continue to enforce the statute to this date 117. The enforcement of this statute abridges Plaintiffs’ rights to freedom of speech, expression, and the press as guaranteed by Article I, Section 19 of the Tennessee Constitution, 118. As aresult of Defendants’ enforcement of the statute, Plaintiffs have been denied their free speech right to discuss political campaigns or show favor as individuals towards a political candidate. COUNT IV: FIRST AMENDMENT AND 42 U.S.C. § 1983 PRIOR RESTRAINT ON SPEECH 119, Plaintiffs hereby re-allege and incomporate each and every allegation set forth above as if fully set forth herein. 120, The United States Supreme Court held in Citizens’ United that any laws that result in a prior restraint on political speech must be narrowly tailored, 33 {004932/14554/00354733.DOC / Ver.6} 121. By forcing any two or more individuals who wish to participate in the free flow and exchange of political ideas and beliefs to register as a political campaign and pay $100.00 in civil fees, the Registry has established a prior restraint on speech that has not been narrowly tailored, COUNT V: PERMANENT INJUNCTIVE RELIEF UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1983 122. Plaintiffs hereby re-allege and incorporate cach and every allegation set forth above as if fully set forth herein, 123. Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights have been violated under color of state law. 124, To make Plaintiffs whole and restore their rights, the state of Tennessee must strike Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-10-101, ef seg. and enjoin the Tennessee legislature to revamp ‘Tennessee’s campaign finance laws to comply with the Supreme Court’s holding in Citizens United. 125, Accordingly, Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law and only injunctive relief can restore Plaintifis* constitutionally protected rights. 126, Furthermore, the continued deprivation of Plaintiffs? rights during the pendency of this case causes Plaintiffs irreparable harms, 127. Plaintiffs are, therefore, entitled to a permanent injunction. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for the following relief: 1. That service of process be had upon the Defendants and that the Defendants be required to appear and answer this Complaint within the time prescribed by law; 2. An award of all damages resulting from the need for Plaintiffs to respond to Curlee’s baseless allegations and attend numerous inappropriate Registry hearings; 34 {004932/14554/00354733,DOC / Ver.6} 3. A permanent injunction prohibiting further violations of Plaintiffs’ civil rights and requiring the Defendants to recognize Plaintiffs’ rights of free speech and association and Defendant Registry to rescind its judgment against Plaintifts; 4, A declaration that Tenn, Code Ann, § 2-10-101, et seq. impermissibly violates the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, both as it is written and how it has been applied by the Registry, and must be stricken; 5 An award of reasonable attomey’s fees, pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interest, and the costs incurred in this action; 6. All other relief, whether legal or equitable, as may be just and proper under the circumstances; and 7. Atrial by jury on all matters contained herein that may be tried by jury. Respectfully submitted, Benjamin A, Gastel, BPR No. 28699 “Seamus T. Kelly, BPR No. 32202 BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC ‘The Freedom Center 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN_37203Phone: (615) 254-8801 Fax: (615) 255-5419 gerards@bsjfirm.com seamusk@bsifirm.com Counsel for Plaintiffs {004932/14554/00354733.DOC / Ver.6}