The Supreme Court announced (ht -Eric Brown) today that it would not be granting certiorari in the case Voters Education Committee v. The Washington State Public Disclosure Commission.
CCP had filed an amicus brief with the court asking that they hear the case.
The VEC asked the Supreme Court in March to review their case, which would have had major implications for "McCain-Feingold" and state campaign finance laws throughout the nation.
The VEC challenged a Washington state law that requires any organization that "supports" or "opposes" a candidate or ballot issue to register as a "political committee" absent of express advocacy.
CCP argued in its brief that "the ‘support’ or ‘oppose’ standards are not adequate to protect everyday issue advocates from electoral-speech prosecutions." CCP pointed out that no fewer than 30 states’ laws could be impacted by a Supreme Court ruling.
Therefore, CCP contended, the Supreme Court should hear the case in order to reaffirm that "support" or "oppose" standards are not "sufficiently defined to protect citizens searching for the line between issue advocacy and advocacy of election or defeat."
CCP noted in its brief that the only "support" or "oppose" standard reviewed by the Court to date applied solely to state, district, and local political party committees. The Court has not applied the "support" or "oppose" standards to non-party organizations.
CCP argued that the "support" or "oppose" standard is overly vague when applied to non-party organizations. CCP’s amicus highlighted that in "Buckley, the Court noted the threat to robust issue discussion that lies within vague statues."
The amicus brief also noted that the state of Washington court’s opinion conflicts with the opinion of at least two federal circuits. Both the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth and Fifth Circuits in Center for Individual Freedom, Inc. v. Carmouce (CFIF) and North Carolina Right to Life, Inc. v. Bartlett (Bartlett) have held such "support" or "oppose" standards to be vague.
