PRESS RELEASE
Tuesday, October 30, 2001
Contact: James Bopp, Jr., General Counsel
Phone 812/232-2434; Fax 812/235-3685
jboppjr@abcs.com

 

U.S. District Court Rules Unconstitutional North Carolina Regulation of Issue Advocacy Organizations and Contribution Limits to Independent Expenditure PAC's
 

Late last week, U.S. District Court Judge Terrence Boyle ruled in favor of North Carolina Right to Life by declaring two provisions of North Carolina's state election laws unconstitutional. As a result, North Carolina Right to Life will not have to register as a political committee if it engages in issue advocacy and contributions to its Independent Expenditure PAC will no longer be subject to the state's $4,000 contribution limit.

The first provision involved the state's definition of political committee that required any organizations which made expenditures to "support or oppose" a candidate to report all their contributions and expenditures to the state.  North Carolina adopted two standards to determine whether an expenditure would "support or oppose" a candidate.  The first standard comported with the United States Supreme Court's well-accepted "express advocacy" test, which allows regulation of political speech only when the communication use "explicit words" expressly advocating the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate.

The second standard, however, allowed North Carolina to regulate issue advocacy, that does not contain express advocacy, based on the timing of the communication, the cost of the communication and to whom it is distributed.  Judge Boyle held that this standard "clearly violates the 'express advocacy' test as set forth by the Supreme Court." Because the North Carolina regulations impermissibly regulated issue advocacy in a manner inconsistent with well-established Supreme Court precedent, Judge Boyle held the regulation in question unconstitutional.

North Carolina Right to Life, Inc. attorney James Bopp, Jr., General Counsel for the James Madison Center for Free Speech, praised the decision as "consistent with the Supreme Court's well-established rationale in Buckley v. Valeo and subsequent case law." Bopp noted that the North Carolina statutes had a dangerous potential to "silence organizations by placing unconstitutional burdens on their ability to engage in issue-oriented speech." Bopp went on to state, "It is imperative that state governments comply with constitutional mandates when regulating political speech lest they abridge the right of our citizens to speak freely on matters of significant public importance."

The second statute in question imposes a $4,000 contribution limit on all political committees, including those that only engage in independent expenditures. Specifically, North Carolina Right to Life Committee Fund for Independent Political Expenditures argued that contribution limits on PACs that only engage in independent expenditures unconstitutionally burdened its right to engage in political speech.

In holding this regulation unconstitutional, Judge Boyle noted that the only sufficiently important governmental interest to justify contribution limits is the "prevention of corruption, or the appearance of corruption" by quid pro quo exchanges contributions for political favors by candidates. However, this rationale does not extended to contributions given to independent expenditure political committees, since such contributions are not to candidates and such committees do not coordinate their political messages with candidates.

According to Bopp, "While I fully support North Carolina's right to limit large contributions to candidates, North Carolina may not unconstitutionally burden vital political speech under the guise of protecting the electoral process.  PACs that engage in only independent expenditures pose no threat of corruption of candidates and thus must be totally free to raise all the money the need to advocate the election or defeat of candidates. "

A facsimile copy of North Carolina Right to Life v. Leake may be obtained by an e-mail request to
madisoncenter@aol.com. Please include your facsimile number in such request.