In a sweeping regulation of political speech, the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, known as McCain-Feingold, banned so-called “electioneering communications”—corporate—or union-funded broadcast ads that mention a candidate shortly before an election.  Under this law, the Federal Election Commission banned the airing of Hillary:  The Movie, produced by the nonprofit Citizens United, on cable TV, and had required the group to “name names” of the film’s backers by disclosing to the government detailed personal information about donors if the group ran TV ads for the film.

Citizens United challenged the FEC’s application of the law.  IJ has now submitted two amicus briefs to the U.S. Supreme Court supporting the group.  The most recent brief, submitted in response to an order directing the parties to submit supplemental briefing, argues that the Court should overturn two previous decisions, Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and portions of McConnell v. FEC, which authorized governments to censor corporate-funded electoral advocacy, such as advertisements, films, and even books.  The first amicus brief IJ filed argued that government-forced disclosure of political activity burdens citizen groups with needless red tape, chills speech and violates privacy while providing little if any informational benefit to voters.

Moreover, as IJ’s defense of neighbors in Parker North, Colo., and the Independence Institute show, government-forced disclosure laws also open grassroots and nonprofit groups to being sued for campaign-finance violations by their political adversaries.

The federal electioneering communications ban has spawned similar speech regulations in at least 15 states, many of which regulate more speech by more speakers.  IJ recently secured a ruling striking down Florida’s law, the broadest regulation of speech in the nation.