The U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado today enjoined Colorado from enforcing against Colorado Right to Life Committee ("CRLC") several challenged campaign finance provisions passed by voter initiative. Colorado voters added a provision to their state constitution requiring disclosure of "electioneering communications," using broader definition than that approved in McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93 (2003). The initiative banned corporate contributions for electioneering communications with limited exceptions, and defined "political committees" that must register and meet certain disclosure requirements with a low spending threshold.

The district court declared that, as applied to CRLC, the corporate ban was unconstitutional for lack of an exception for the sort of ideological corporations identified in FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, 479 U.S. 238 (1986) (MCFL-type corporations). The court held that CRLC qualified as an MCFL-type corporation despite de minimis corporate contributions.

The district court also struck down Colorado's PAC requirement on the basis of the "major purpose" test announced by the United States Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976). Colorado required registration as a "political committee" for any group making expenditures in excess of $200, which the district court declared unconstitutional as applied to groups like CRLC whose "major purpose" is not the nomination or election of candidates. The court noted that if Colorado "wishes to justify a regulation of corporate political activity under prior Supreme Court precedent authorizing bans on direct corporate electioneering, it must demonstrate that the regulated activity is 'the functional equivalent of express advocacy.'" (Citing McConnell.) The district court rejected Colorado's offer to construe the PAC disclosure scheme to include the "major purpose" test because the challenged provision was not readily susceptible to such a construction.

The district court rejected CRLC's argument that voter guides providing candidates' position on issues were beyond the scope of the State's interest because they focused on issues. The district court said the voter guides were regulable because they influenced elections. It also rejected some claims made facially, while ruling on them as applied to CRLC.

"This is a major victory for free political speech and establishes some clear guidelines in the wake of McConnell, such as the continued viability of the major purpose test and the scope of the exception for MCFL-type corporation," said James Bopp, Jr., President of the Madison Center for Free Speech, which represents CRLC.

The decision is Colorado Right to Life Committee v. Davidson, No. 03-cv-1454, October 3, 2005). It is available to those with PACER access at http://www.cod.uscourts.gov.