Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Document: 01019354934
Page: 1
No. 14-1387
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
CITIZENS UNITED,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
SCOTT GESSLER and SUZANNE STAIERT,
Defendant-Appellees,
and
COLORADO DEMOCRATIC PARTY, et al.
Intervenor-Defendant-Appellees.
On Appeal From The United States District Court For The District Of Colorado
Honorable R. Brooke Jackson
In No. 1:14-CV-02266-RBJ
CITIZENS UNITEDS OPPOSITION TO SECRETARYS
PETITION FOR REHEARING AND FOR REHEARING EN BANC
Michael Boos
CITIZENS UNITED
1006 Pennsylvania Avenue, S.E.
Washington, D.C. 20003
(202) 547-5421
Theodore B. Olson
Counsel of Record
Matthew D. McGill
Amir C. Tayrani
Lucas C. Townsend
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
(202) 955-8500
TOlson@gibsondunn.com
Document: 01019354934
Page: 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................... 1
2BARGUMENT ............................................................................................................. 4
I.
II.
CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 15
Document: 01019354934
Page: 3
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Pages
Cases
Air Line Pilots Assn, Intl v. E. Air Lines, Inc.,
863 F.2d 891 (D.C. Cir. 1989) ...............................................................................4
Citizens United v. FEC,
558 U.S. 310 (2010) .............................................................. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 11, 14
Kimberlin v. U.S. Dept of Justice,
351 F.3d 1166 (D.C. Cir. 2003) .............................................................................9
McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission,
514 U.S. 334 (1995) .............................................................................................15
Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v. Minn. Commr of Revenue,
460 U.S. 575 (1983) .................................................................................. 3, 11, 13
In re Morgan,
717 F.3d 1186 (11th Cir. 2013) ........................................................................... 15
Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC,
512 U.S. 622 (1994) .............................................................................................14
United States v. Sturm,
Nos. 09-1386, 09-5022, 2011 WL 6261657 (10th Cir. Apr. 4, 2011) ...................5
Constitutional Provision
Colo. Const. art. XXVIII, 2(8)(b) .........................................................................12
Rules
10th Cir. R. 35.1 .................................................................................... 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9
10th Cir. R. 40.1 .........................................................................................................2
Fed. R. App. P. 35 ..................................................................................................1, 4
Fed. R. App. P. 40 ......................................................................................................2
ii
Document: 01019354934
Page: 4
INTRODUCTION
As requested by the Court, Citizens United respectfully submits this opposition to the Secretarys Petition for Rehearing and for Rehearing En Banc. The
panel correctly held that Citizens United has established a substantial likelihood of
success on its claim that Colorados campaign finance law unconstitutionally imposes discriminatory registration, reporting, and disclosure requirements on
Citizens United that are not imposed on other, exempted media entities. That
decision does not merit rehearing by the en banc Court for at least two reasons.1
First, the Secretary fails to satisfy the stringent requirements for en banc rehearing. En banc review is highly disfavored and is reserved only for those rare
cases where a panel decision conflicts with circuit precedent or controlling Supreme Court authority, or where the decision involves an issue of exceptional
public importance. See Fed. R. App. P. 35; 10th Cir. R. 35.1(A). Neither factor is
met here. The Secretary makes no attempt to show that the panels narrow, asapplied holding conflicts with circuit precedent, and his attempt to manufacture a
conflict with the Supreme Courts decision in Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S.
310 (2010), is thoroughly refuted by the panels opinion. Nor does the panel deci1
Citations to Op. __ are to the Courts published slip opinion dated November
12, 2014. Citations to Pet. __ are to the Secretarys Petition for Rehearing and
for Rehearing En Banc, filed on November 26, 2014. Citations to Tr. __ are to
the certified transcript of the oral argument in this appeal on October 7, 2014, attached hereto as Exhibit A.
Document: 01019354934
Page: 5
sion qualify as one of exceptional importance requiring en banc review. While the
right to participate in political discourse on equal terms with other speakers is, of
course, exceptionally important, the panel vindicated that right on the narrowest
possible groundsfar narrower than Citizens United soughtand that factbound
decision does not warrant further review by the full Court.2
Second, the panels judgment reversing the district courts denial of a preliminary injunction breaks no new ground and is plainly correct under settled First
Amendment principles. As Citizens United explained in its principal brief, Colorado may not constitutionally burden the core political speech of an established
documentary filmmaker like Citizens United with onerous reporting and disclosure
requirements while exempting other favored speakersnewspapers, magazines,
and broadcast facilitieswho engage in identical political speech. Under the First
Amendment, restrictions distinguishing among different speakers, allowing
speech by some but not others, are [p]rohibited. Citizens United, 558 U.S. at
340. In holding that the First Amendment requires the Secretary to treat Citizens
United the same as the exempted media (Op. 17), the panel simply applied settled
2
Although the petition is styled as one for rehearing and rehearing en banc, the
text of the petition itself includes no argument in support of panel rehearing. This
response therefore addresses the arguments for rehearing en banc presented in the
Secretarys petition. To the extent that the Secretary seeks panel rehearing, the
Secretary has waived any argument that a significant issue has been overlooked or
misconstrued by the court. 10th Cir. R. 40.1(A); see also Fed. R. App. P.
40(a)(2).
Document: 01019354934
Page: 6
law to allow Citizens United to engage in protected political speech on the same
terms as other speakers ahead of the November 2014 elections.3
Indeed, to the extent the panel erred at all, it was in failing to apply strict
scrutiny to Colorados blatantly discriminatory reporting and disclosure regime.
Although the panel correctly recognized that the Supreme Court has consistently
rejected the proposition that the institutional press has any constitutional privilege
beyond that of other speakers (Op. 23 (quoting Citizens United, 558 U.S. at 352)
(emphasis in original)), the panel nonetheless failed to heed the Supreme Courts
direction that strict scrutiny applies where a facially discriminatory law single[s]
out the press for special treatment. Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v. Minn.
Commr of Revenue, 460 U.S. 575, 582 (1983). That error did not affect the outcome, however, because, as the panel correctly concluded, Citizens Uniteds claim
that its political speech is burdened relative to that of the institutional press is likely to succeed even under the less stringent exacting scrutiny standard.
The panel concluded that advertisements for Citizens Uniteds film were subject
to the reporting and disclosure requirements (see Op. 34) because Citizens United
had not established that similar advertisements would be exempt if published by a
newspaper or other exempted media entity. The Secretary has since conceded
that he historically exempts such advertisements when published by exempted
media entities, and thus under the panel opinion, Citizens Uniteds advertisements
will also be treated as exempt. See Letter from Theodore B. Olson to Elisabeth
Shumaker, Citizens United v. Gessler, No. 14-1387, at 1-2 (Oct. 24, 2014) (attaching correspondence from the Secretary).
Document: 01019354934
Page: 7
Accordingly, rehearing should be denied and the case remanded for the district court to resolve any remaining issues and enter final judgment on the merits.
ARGUMENT
2B
Rehearing en banc is not favored and ordinarily will not be ordered unless: (1) en banc consideration is necessary to secure or maintain uniformity of the
courts decisions; or (2) the proceeding involves a question of exceptional importance. Fed. R. App. P. 35(a). [O]nly in the rarest of circumstances should a
circuit court countenance the drain on judicial resources, the expense and delay
for the litigants, and the high risk of a multiplicity of opinions offering no authoritative guidance, that full circuit rehearing of a freshly-decided case entails. Air
Line Pilots Assn, Intl v. E. Air Lines, Inc., 863 F.2d 891, 925 (D.C. Cir. 1989)
(R.B. Ginsburg, J., concurring in the denial of rehearing en banc; internal quotation
marks omitted).
This Courts rules echo the federal judicial policy, making clear that en banc
review is disfavored and an extraordinary procedure. 10th Cir. R. 35.1(A). En
banc review is only appropriate in circumstances involving: (1) a panel decision
that conflicts with a decision of the United States Supreme Court or of this Court,
or (2) an issue of exceptional public importance. Id.
These stringent requirements are not met here. The Secretary fails to establish any conflict between the panel decision and decisions of the Supreme Court or
Document: 01019354934
Page: 8
of this Court. And although the issues in this case are certainly of public importance, the Secretary has failed to show that the panels narrow, as-applied
holding is so exceptional as to justify extraordinary en banc review. In any
event, the panel decision is substantially correct on the merits; and although, in another case, en banc rehearing might be appropriate to rectify the panels failure to
apply strict scrutiny, correcting that error would not change the outcome here.
I.
in the panel decision and presumably considered by the full Court prior to publication. As this Courts rules explain, before any published panel opinion issues, it is
generally circulated to the full court and every judge on the court is given an opportunity to comment. 10th Cir. R. 35.1(A). Thus, under the Courts ordinary
procedures, the full Court had already had an opportunity to consider and comment
on the panel decision before it was published on November 12, 2014. See, e.g.,
United States v. Sturm, Nos. 09-1386, 09-5022, 2011 WL 6261657, at *1 (10th Cir.
Apr. 4, 2011) (ordering en banc rehearing sua sponte on the same day that the panel decisions were issued). The Court did not elect to rehear the case en banc then,
and en banc review remains inappropriate now.
1. The Secretary fails to identify any relevant conflict between the panels
Document: 01019354934
Page: 9
decision and a decision of the Supreme Court or of this Court. See 10th Cir. R.
35.1(A). The Secretary does not even contend that the panel decision conflicts
with any decision of this Court. Instead, the Secretary asserts that the panel decision is in direct conflict with Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010),
which the Secretary mischaracterizes as somehow endorsing the discriminatory application of compelled disclosure requirements. Pet. 1, 3-5. The Secretary errs.
Citizens United involved a broad challenge to federal disclosure and disclaimer requirements, and the Supreme Court held only that those requirements
were not unconstitutional as applied in th[at] case. 558 U.S. at 371. In contrast,
the precise issue here was neither raised nor decided in Citizens United: Whether
Colorado may apply its reporting and disclosure requirements to Citizens United
and other speakers who do not own a printing press or broadcast facility while expressly exempting selected press entities from those burdensome requirements and
the chilling threat of enforcement liability. See, e.g., Op. 4 (noting that the question presented in this case concerns whether Citizens United is treated differently
from various media that are exempted from Colorados reporting and disclosure
regime). The Supreme Court in Citizens United did not consider, much less decide, whether reporting and disclosure requirements are valid when they are
applied, not evenhandedly to all speakers, but discriminatorily to a subset of speakers singled out by the State for disfavored treatment because they do not publish a
6
Document: 01019354934
Page: 10
Document: 01019354934
Page: 11
the oral argument, for example, the Secretarys attorney explained that the reporting and disclosure requirements would apply if electioneering communications and
independent expenditures were printed on a glossy mailer (Tr. 23:21) or a newspaper insert (Tr. 20:17-21:5) or distributed via DVD (Tr. 92:17), but would not
apply if identical communications were printed on the pages of a newspaper (Tr.
23:20) or a newspapers online edition (Tr. 26:13-18) or an Internet blog (Tr. 27:928:7). In other words, the Secretary seeks to draw, and then redraw, limits on
core political speech through ad hoc application of Colorados discriminatory reporting and disclosure requirements. Citizens United, 558 U.S. at 326. The panel
correctly rejected the Secretarys ad hoc distinctions, and the Secretary again fails
to show a conflict with any decision of the Supreme Court.
2. While the right to be free from discriminatory burdens on political speech
is undoubtedly an issue of public importance, the Secretary has not shown that the
panels narrow vindication of that right here is sufficient to justify en banc review.
See 10th Cir. R. 35.1(A). The panel expressly declined to reach Citizens Uniteds
facial challenge to Colorados reporting and disclosure regime (Op. 17-18), declined to decide whether strict scrutiny should apply (id. at 19), and declined to
grant injunctive relief against application of Colorados reporting and disclosure
requirements to Citizens Uniteds advertisements (id. at 5), although the Secretary
has since conceded that point (see Letter from Theodore B. Olson to Elisabeth
8
Document: 01019354934
Page: 12
Shumaker, Citizens United v. Gessler, No. 14-1387, at 1-2 (Oct. 24, 2014)). The
narrowness of the panels holding counsels strongly against en banc review. See,
e.g., Kimberlin v. U.S. Dept of Justice, 351 F.3d 1166, 1166 (D.C. Cir. 2003)
(Tatel, J., concurring in denial of rehearing en banc) (rehearing not warranted given [the] extraordinarily narrow scope of the panel decision).
The Secretary argues that the panel decision creates the type of entity-based
distinction that troubled the Supreme Court in Citizens United I, and imports that
distinction in Colorado law where it did not previously exist. Pet. 2. Neither contention has merit, much less creates an issue of exceptional importance warranting
en banc review. Indeed, the only conclusion that can be drawn from the Secretarys admission that entity-based distinction[s] run afoul of Citizens United is
that the panel decision arrived at the correct outcome. As a result of the panel decision, Citizens United now enjoys the same exempt status under Colorado law that
it enjoys under federal law. See App. at A33 (Federal Election Commission concluding that [t]he distribution of documentary films to the public is the legitimate
press function of an entity, such as Citizens United, that regularly produces news
stories, commentary, or editorials in the form of films). That result obviously is
not in conflict with Citizens United.
Moreover, the Secretarys strained argument that the panel decision creates a
distinction based on a speakers identity where none existed in Colorado law (Pet.
9
Document: 01019354934
Page: 13
10
Document: 01019354934
Page: 14
holding, the panel decision brings Colorado law into compliance with the First
Amendments prohibition on distinguishing among different speakers, at least as
applied to Citizens United. Citizens United, 558 U.S. at 340.
The Secretary does not even attempt to distinguish Minneapolis Star &
Tribune Co. v. Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue, 460 U.S. 575 (1983), which
struck down a state law that applied differentially to certain favored media entities. Id. at 585. There, the Court held that where a facially discriminatory law
single[s] out the press for special treatment, such a law suggests that the goal of
the regulation is not unrelated to suppression of expression, and therefore is presumptively unconstitutional. Id. at 583, 585. That holding is unaffected by
Citizens United, which did not present a challenge to reporting and disclosure requirements on the ground that they applied differentially to certain speakers but not
others.
The Secretary accuses the panel of adding to an unworkable . . . thicket of
rulings applying Colorados media exemptions (Pet. 8-11), and claims that the
panel decision fails to provide practical guidance, clarity, and stability (id. at
10-11). But it is clear that as applied to Citizens United, the panel decision is both
correct and easily administrable because it eliminates the Secretarys artificial distinction between favored media entities in the traditional press and a
documentary filmmaker with an extensive history of producing and distributing
11
Document: 01019354934
Page: 15
Document: 01019354934
Page: 16
Document: 01019354934
Page: 17
er form of scrutiny, but that error did not affect the judgment and therefore does
not merit en banc review in this case. See Op. 19.4
In this regard, the panel majority erred in effectively concluding that Colorados discriminatory regulations were content-neutral. See Op. 19. Under Turner
Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622 (1994), laws that impose differential burdens upon speech because of its content are analyzed under the most
exacting scrutiny. Id. at 642. Intermediate scrutiny applies only to regulations
that are unrelated to the content of speech. Id. Although Turner permitted differential treatment based on the technological difference between cable and
broadcast television, it was clear that the differential treatment in that case was not
based on the content of the speech at issue. Id. at 643-44. Here, by contrast, the
Secretary has conceded that whether an entity will actually be exempt depends on
whether the speech can be easily identified and evaluated by the audience. Op. 2526. Colorados regulations, as interpreted by the Secretary, therefore expressly favor speakers with well-known, easily identified viewpoints over the speech of
Even if exacting scrutiny were the correct standardand even accepting the
Secretarys asserted informational justification for treating some media entities
differently from othersthe hodgepodge of exceptions enshrined in Colorado law
comes nowhere close to satisfying the substantial relation requirement under exacting scrutiny. Citizens United, 558 U.S. at 366-67. The Secretary fails to
establish that exempting newspapers, magazines, periodicals, and the owners of
broadcast facilities from the disclosure requirements, but not other similar media
entities, bears a substantial relation to the States asserted informational interest.
14
Document: 01019354934
Page: 18
obscure speakers, those who are new to the marketplace of ideas, or those whose
viewpoints are simply unknown.5
CONCLUSION
In our democratic republic, where the right to vote is fundamental, courts
of appeals routinely decide appeals about elections and voting without granting en
banc review. In re Morgan, 717 F.3d 1186, 1194 (11th Cir. 2013) (Pryor, J., respecting the denial of rehearing en banc).
compelling reason to prolong this appeal and burden the full Court with en banc
review of a panel decision that is narrowly decided and reaches the correct result.
For the foregoing reasons, the panel should decline to rehear the case, and this
Court should deny rehearing en banc.
15
Document: 01019354934
Page: 19
Respectfully submitted,
MICHAEL BOOS
MichaelBoos@citizensunited.org
CITIZENS UNITED
1006 Pennsylvania Avenue, S.E.
Washington, D.C. 20003
Telephone: (202) 547-5420
Fax: (202) 547-5421
s/ Theodore B. Olson
THEODORE B. OLSON
TOlson@gibsondunn.com
MATTHEW D. MCGILL
MMcGill@gibsondunn.com
AMIR C. TAYRANI
ATayrani@gibsondunn.com
LUCAS C. TOWNSEND
LTownsend@gibsondunn.com
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Telephone: (202) 955-8500
Fax: (202) 467-0539
Document: 01019354934
Page: 20
Document: 01019354934
EXHIBIT A
Page: 21
Document: 01019354934
Page: 22
Denver, Colorado
Tuesday, October 7, 2014
Document: 01019354934
Page: 23
A P P E A R A N C E S
4
5
On behalf of Plaintiff-Appellant:
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Document: 01019354934
Page: 24
C O N T E N T S
2
3
4
PAGE
Matthew D. Grove, Esq.,
Counsel for Colorado Secretary of State
38
Mr. Grove,
Rebuttal
49
Mr. Olson,
Rebuttal
69
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Document: 01019354934
Page: 25
P R O C E E D I N G S
JUDGE HARTZ:
statute says.
10
11
12
13
14
statute.
15
16
17
questions.
18
MR. GROVE:
19
JUDGE HARTZ:
20
MR. GROVE:
21
JUDGE HARTZ:
22
Document: 01019354934
Page: 26
Gessler.
3
4
5
MR. GROVE:
Great.
So the definition
10
11
to any candidate."
12
any candidate.
13
14
"any
MR. GROVE:
That's correct.
It's a
15
16
17
JUDGE HARTZ:
18
19
court of appeals?
20
21
22
MR. GROVE:
Document: 01019354934
Page: 27
granted cert?
MR. GROVE:
It has not.
So presently
JUDGE HARTZ:
Okay.
It also has
broad.
10
That's very
in the statute?
11
MR. GROVE:
12
13
14
15
16
17
is.
18
JUDGE HARTZ:
Okay.
Is there a
19
20
distributed means?
21
22
MR. GROVE:
No we
Document: 01019354934
Page: 28
JUDGE HARTZ:
MR. GROVE:
That's correct.
It's
8
9
10
JUDGE HARTZ:
So something attacking or
11
MR. GROVE:
12
JUDGE HARTZ:
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
MR. GROVE:
Yes.
Document: 01019354934
Page: 29
MR. GROVE:
$250.
JUDGE HARTZ:
10
11
payment?
12
No.
13
a donation to fund.
14
15
16
17
18
funding it.
19
JUDGE HARTZ:
20
21
electioneering matter.
22
MR. GROVE:
Yeah, the --
Document: 01019354934
Page: 30
JUDGE HARTZ:
MR. GROVE:
JUDGE HARTZ:
MR. GROVE:
product.
JUDGE HARTZ:
10
11
out?
12
MR. GROVE:
13
14
15
situation here.
16
17
18
19
20
an earmark.
21
22
JUDGE HARTZ:
Okay.
Now, there's an
Document: 01019354934
Page: 31
section.
is:
also apply?
The definition
10
Does that
MR. GROVE:
11
12
13
14
15
if I --
16
JUDGE HARTZ:
17
18
MR. GROVE:
The earmark.
And so, if I
19
20
21
22
It doesn't
Document: 01019354934
Page: 32
Please donate."
10
11
12
company treasury.
13
interpretation of earmarking.
14
JUDGE HARTZ:
How precise?
If you say,
15
16
17
18
directing it.
19
20
earmark?
21
22
MR. GROVE:
Is that an
Document: 01019354934
Page: 33
earmarked.
JUDGE HARTZ:
MR. GROVE:
JUDGE HARTZ:
10
11
MR. GROVE:
12
JUDGE HARTZ:
13
Okay.
Okay.
answer?
14
MR. GROVE:
I don't.
15
16
17
18
19
20
our act.
21
22
JUDGE HARTZ:
Yeah.
Document: 01019354934
Page: 34
"Any
defeat of a candidate."
communicated?
8
9
MR. GROVE:
Well, in terms of -- in
10
11
12
13
JUDGE HARTZ:
14
MR. GROVE:
Yes.
If it qualifies as an
15
16
17
18
JUDGE HARTZ:
19
22
I'm talking
20
21
I'm sorry.
MR. GROVE:
rule.
JUDGE HARTZ:
Okay.
Document: 01019354934
Page: 35
media?
MR. GROVE:
JUDGE HARTZ:
Because you
10
11
12
13
MR. GROVE:
14
15
expenditures.
16
communications.
17
18
19
20
21
22
For electioneering
Document: 01019354934
Page: 36
film --
4
5
6
JUDGE HARTZ:
The
again.
MR. GROVE:
is $550,000.
10
JUDGE HARTZ:
11
MR. GROVE:
Okay.
There is, until the film is
12
13
14
15
JUDGE HARTZ:
16
MR. GROVE:
Okay.
However, they're also going
17
18
19
20
communications.
21
22
Document: 01019354934
Page: 37
record.
electioneering communication.
10
11
disclosed.
Now the number of reports, I suppose
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
The electioneering
Document: 01019354934
Page: 38
disclosure report.
entry.
9
10
11
JUDGE HARTZ:
If that
And no disclaimer
12
13
of themselves.
14
15
16
JUDGE HARTZ:
Okay.
independent expenditure?
MR. GROVE:
So for independent
17
18
19
20
21
22
Document: 01019354934
Page: 39
be disclosed.
8
9
JUDGE HARTZ:
10
MR. GROVE:
11
12
13
electioneering communication.
14
JUDGE HARTZ:
15
MR. GROVE:
Okay.
And then, the committee
16
17
the two.
18
19
20
21
22
correct?
Is that
Document: 01019354934
Page: 40
MR. GROVE:
JUDGE HARTZ:
That's correct.
So is there anything here
Colorado.
MR. GROVE:
10
11
committee obligation.
JUDGE HARTZ:
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Document: 01019354934
Page: 41
originally.
MR. GROVE:
Is
The content is
independent expenditure.
10
11
advertisement.
12
JUDGE HARTZ:
Okay.
13
14
Mountain News?
15
16
17
MR. GROVE:
That's right.
I mean, an
Okay.
What if Citizens
18
19
20
an independent expenditure?
21
22
MR. GROVE:
So
Document: 01019354934
Page: 42
JUDGE HARTZ:
MR. GROVE:
Yes.
Yes.
JUDGE HARTZ:
10
11
12
13
Parade Magazine?
14
MR. GROVE:
My understanding of Parade
15
16
paper.
17
JUDGE HARTZ:
18
It's on its
19
20
21
22
If
Document: 01019354934
Page: 43
communication?
MR. GROVE:
JUDGE HARTZ:
MR. GROVE:
10
Yes.
So I could address that
later.
11
JUDGE HARTZ:
12
13
14
publishes.
15
16
17
18
19
20
MR. GROVE:
21
22
Document: 01019354934
Page: 44
opinion expressed.
sort.
organization.
5
6
Is that correct?
MR. GROVE:
that's correct.
JUDGE HARTZ:
newspaper?
10
11
12
MR. GROVE:
13
14
greatest history.
The --
15
JUDGE HARTZ:
16
17
MR. GROVE:
18
answer, yes.
19
20
21
periodical.
22
Document: 01019354934
Page: 45
office, is not.
there?
Yes.
JUDGE HARTZ:
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
MR. GROVE:
We
17
18
19
20
21
22
Document: 01019354934
Page: 46
candidate.
JUDGE HARTZ:
that correct?
MR. GROVE:
Isn't
10
11
12
JUDGE HARTZ:
13
14
Okay.
sure, I think.
MR. GROVE:
Yeah.
15
16
about thoroughly.
17
18
JUDGE HARTZ:
Okay.
19
MR. GROVE:
20
JUDGE HARTZ:
That's exempt.
Why is that?
Well, not a
21
22
Document: 01019354934
Page: 47
MR. GROVE:
next question.
JUDGE HARTZ:
10
11
edition.
12
MR. GROVE:
13
JUDGE HARTZ:
Yes, essentially.
So the exemptions, any
14
15
16
17
18
MR. GROVE:
19
JUDGE HARTZ:
Yes.
And what if it's public --
20
21
22
MR. GROVE:
Document: 01019354934
Page: 48
7
8
9
JUDGE HARTZ:
about blogs also.
Okay.
MR. GROVE:
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
That's not
21
22
Document: 01019354934
Page: 49
exempt.
8
9
10
JUDGE HARTZ:
11
MR. GROVE:
12
13
14
15
16
17
blog.
18
JUDGE HARTZ:
19
20
21
Is that correct?
22
Document: 01019354934
Page: 50
MR. GROVE:
That's right.
Just a
Our
10
contained.
11
12
under 7(a)(b)(3).
13
JUDGE HARTZ:
14
15
is there --
16
17
18
19
20
MR. GROVE:
How often, or
that.
JUDGE TYMKOVICH:
21
Is that -- if the
22
Document: 01019354934
Page: 51
under the --
MR. GROVE:
JUDGE HARTZ:
business?
MR. GROVE:
10
11
12
13
JUDGE HARTZ:
14
coordination problem.
15
candidate.
16
of coordination.
17
18
MR. GROVE:
19
20
21
printing policy --
22
JUDGE HARTZ:
Document: 01019354934
Page: 52
TV and things.
MR. GROVE:
10
11
12
13
9 News
Okay.
JUDGE TYMKOVICH:
14
15
16
17
18
MR. GROVE:
19
JUDGE TYMKOVICH:
20
Yes.
They're exempt as
broadcasters?
21
MR. GROVE:
Yes.
22
JUDGE TYMKOVICH:
Document: 01019354934
Page: 53
exemption?
MR. GROVE:
8
9
JUDGE TYMKOVICH:
I'm going.
Yeah.
That's where
10
11
12
13
14
broadcast entity?
15
MR. GROVE:
16
17
entity.
18
19
good example.
20
21
22
Document: 01019354934
Page: 54
of the exemption.
10
JUDGE TYMKOVICH:
Right.
But if the
11
12
13
14
15
MR. GROVE:
16
17
18
19
20
to fruition.
21
22
JUDGE TYMKOVICH:
Document: 01019354934
Page: 55
content.
the exemption?
MR. GROVE:
business is.
JUDGE TYMKOVICH:
10
11
12
13
Yeah.
14
15
16
oriented website?
17
18
19
MR. GROVE:
generally yes.
JUDGE TYMKOVICH:
20
21
22
Document: 01019354934
Page: 56
expenditure in advertising?
MR. GROVE:
this case.
So, yes.
JUDGE TYMKOVICH:
10
11
company.
12
13
secretary's interpretation?
14
MR. GROVE:
15
16
wouldn't be exempted.
17
18
19
20
clicked on it.
21
22
JUDGE TYMKOVICH:
Document: 01019354934
Page: 57
MR. GROVE:
Is that correct?
be both.
10
an electioneering.
11
12
JUDGE TYMKOVICH:
13
MR. GROVE:
14
JUDGE TYMKOVICH:
15
Yes.
Would that be a fair
way to --
16
MR. GROVE:
17
18
19
So it could
JUDGE TYMKOVICH:
There's no
20
21
22
Document: 01019354934
Page: 58
MR. GROVE:
JUDGE TYMKOVICH:
Is that correct?
no disclosure obligation.
MR. GROVE:
There's no disclosure
10
communication.
11
12
$1,000.
13
JUDGE TYMKOVICH:
14
15
16
17
MR. GROVE:
18
earmarking as a loophole.
19
20
JUDGE TYMKOVICH:
Okay.
I just want to
21
22
Document: 01019354934
Page: 59
in.
MR. GROVE:
interpret it.
JUDGE TYMKOVICH:
JUDGE HARTZ:
JUDGE PHILLIPS:
JUDGE HARTZ:
It
That's how we
Okay.
Okay.
I hope it will
10
11
being addressed.
12
MR. OLSON:
13
14
15
16
17
enormously.
18
19
20
understand.
21
22
May
Congress
Document: 01019354934
Page: 60
decades.
of the regulation.
general.
10
11
12
of something.
13
14
debates.
15
16
election.
17
Newspapers
18
19
20
21
covered.
22
Document: 01019354934
Page: 61
I don't see
about self-publication?
published on Kindle?
10
of business?
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
There are so
18
19
20
21
22
attorney general.
It
Document: 01019354934
Page: 62
permitted here.
8
9
10
11
12
JUDGE TYMKOVICH:
13
14
15
MR. OLSON:
16
17
18
19
20
the communication --
21
22
JUDGE TYMKOVICH:
that in a second.
Document: 01019354934
Page: 63
the statute.
important.
8
9
MR. OLSON:
10
11
12
13
14
15
JUDGE TYMKOVICH:
If there are
It
One problem is we
16
17
18
MR. OLSON:
19
20
21
22
Document: 01019354934
Page: 64
state court.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
communication.
22
JUDGE TYMKOVICH:
Isn't the
Document: 01019354934
Page: 65
6
7
MR. OLSON:
JUDGE TYMKOVICH:
There's no content.
10
11
conservatives or liberal.
12
MR. OLSON:
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Document: 01019354934
Page: 66
communication.
10
11
JUDGE TYMKOVICH:
12
13
distinctions.
14
15
elections.
16
17
18
19
MR. OLSON:
What do we do
20
21
well.
22
Document: 01019354934
Page: 67
It
The
contributors.
8
9
The Supreme
But, if there's distinctions made -what the problem with this statute, this regime,
10
11
speak.
12
speak.
13
14
15
16
17
JUDGE TYMKOVICH:
If
If it's a drop-
Is your client's
18
19
20
21
22
MR. OLSON:
Document: 01019354934
Page: 68
JUDGE HARTZ:
MR. OLSON:
JUDGE HARTZ:
It appears that
challenge.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
MR. OLSON:
So I'm
20
preserved it.
21
22
Document: 01019354934
Page: 69
8
9
10
11
applied to us.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
watching --
19
JUDGE HARTZ:
Now, I'm
20
21
22
Document: 01019354934
Page: 70
MR. OLSON:
rebuttal.
JUDGE HARTZ:
10
11
12
MR. OLSON:
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Document: 01019354934
Page: 71
10
11
12
13
JUDGE TYMKOVICH:
Could a disclosure
14
15
theory?
16
MR. OLSON:
17
18
19
20
21
22
Document: 01019354934
Page: 72
JUDGE HARTZ:
MR. OLSON:
statute.
8
9
10
JUDGE HARTZ:
pause.
MR. OLSON:
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
JUDGE HARTZ:
Document: 01019354934
Page: 73
JUDGE PHILLIPS:
JUDGE HARTZ:
Sure.
And if it
10
11
12
MR. OLSON:
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
issue.
20
21
22
Document: 01019354934
Page: 74
10
11
12
speak.
13
14
that.
15
16
JUDGE HARTZ:
question?
17
No, go ahead.
JUDGE PHILLIPS:
Is it your position
18
19
20
discloses?
21
22
MR. OLSON:
Document: 01019354934
Page: 75
two things.
10
11
12
corruption.
13
14
15
16
17
JUDGE PHILLIPS:
Then
It says we
18
19
20
21
22
Document: 01019354934
Page: 76
10
11
12
13
14
MR. OLSON:
And is
15
that.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
It makes no difference
So
Now, the
Document: 01019354934
Page: 77
10
11
government.
12
--
13
JUDGE PHILLIPS:
Well, I understand.
14
15
unconstitutional.
16
17
18
government interest?
19
20
MR. OLSON:
21
22
Document: 01019354934
Page: 78
JUDGE PHILLIPS:
10
11
12
13
14
well?
15
MR. OLSON:
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
unconstitutional.
If it's an even-handed
Document: 01019354934
Page: 79
discrimination.
10
burden.
11
12
13
decisions.
14
It might be
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Here we
Document: 01019354934
Page: 80
in New York.
10
Mexico.
11
12
13
14
on the ballot.
15
JUDGE PHILLIPS:
16
17
18
content-neutral.
19
20
21
22
United.
Document: 01019354934
Page: 81
MR. OLSON:
10
11
12
not ideological.
13
14
ad?
15
16
being said.
17
But they
Is it a negative ad?
Is it an attack
18
19
20
21
22
The
Document: 01019354934
Page: 82
influence a voter.
That is content of
speech.
influence somebody?
Do you want to
10
11
semi-balanced way.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
And
The
Document: 01019354934
Page: 83
JUDGE TYMKOVICH:
10
11
12
MR. OLSON:
13
14
15
16
scrutiny applies.
17
18
19
JUDGE TYMKOVICH:
Okay, but if I
Yes.
20
21
22
Document: 01019354934
Page: 84
interest.
interest.
8
9
10
It cannot be over-inclusive.
It cannot
So this --
JUDGE TYMKOVICH:
It's
11
12
broadcasters.
13
14
15
16
17
18
independent expenditures.
19
20
21
22
Document: 01019354934
Page: 85
corruption there.
speaking.
If you
10
11
12
13
14
unconstitutional.
15
JUDGE HARTZ:
16
17
18
19
expenditures.
20
21
22
Document: 01019354934
Page: 86
Citizens United?
8
9
MR. OLSON:
10
11
12
13
14
15
would be dicta.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
contributions might.
Document: 01019354934
Page: 87
10
11
12
13
So
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
said.
This
Document: 01019354934
Page: 88
JUDGE HARTZ:
a long report.
In Virginia, Citizens
MR. OLSON:
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
JUDGE HARTZ:
It's not.
You're telling
17
18
19
20
21
22
A, you're requiring
Document: 01019354934
Page: 89
significant.
So disclosure requirements or
context.
JUDGE HARTZ:
10
11
12
13
14
MR. OLSON:
15
16
at those requirements.
17
18
19
20
are urgent.
21
22
JUDGE HARTZ:
argument there.
Thank you.
Document: 01019354934
Page: 90
MR. OLSON:
JUDGE HARTZ:
rebuttal time.
can do that.
MR. GROVE:
JUDGE HARTZ:
MR. GROVE:
I think we
Hopefully.
Okay.
May it please the Court.
10
11
12
13
as a whole.
14
15
16
contributions.
17
18
19
20
21
22
Document: 01019354934
Page: 91
It ignores
10
example of this.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
speech.
20
providing information to
As
21
22
Document: 01019354934
Page: 92
speaker.
8
9
JUDGE TYMKOVICH:
Is it really content-
10
11
12
13
14
15
MR. GROVE:
Why
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Document: 01019354934
Page: 93
But they do
10
little guys.
11
communications.
12
13
14
15
16
17
JUDGE TYMKOVICH:
18
19
and it's either going to, you know, try take out a
20
21
candidate?
22
Document: 01019354934
Page: 94
coverage.
The public
10
discrimination?
11
MR. GROVE:
12
13
14
other.
15
on the other.
16
17
18
JUDGE TYMKOVICH:
19
20
21
22
Document: 01019354934
Page: 95
JUDGE HARTZ:
in that context?
10
MR. GROVE:
11
12
13
of view as in a newspaper.
14
that is.
15
JUDGE HARTZ:
Well, so is -- so are
16
17
expenditures.
18
19
20
21
22
That's a point.
MR. GROVE:
You've clearly
Document: 01019354934
Page: 96
newspaper.
it's due.
8
9
concrete.
10
it 28, movies.
11
12
coming from?
13
14
MR. GROVE:
15
JUDGE HARTZ:
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Document: 01019354934
Page: 97
8
9
JUDGE HARTZ:
thing then?
10
MR. GROVE:
11
JUDGE HARTZ:
12
They've never
13
MR. GROVE:
14
JUDGE HARTZ:
15
16
17
MR. GROVE:
18
19
20
21
22
JUDGE HARTZ:
Right, right.
But in the
Document: 01019354934
Page: 98
MR. GROVE:
couple of ways.
As we've
10
11
here.
12
13
14
15
16
test.
17
18
19
20
21
22
Document: 01019354934
Page: 99
fit.
JUDGE TYMKOVICH:
exemption.
10
11
12
13
14
asserting.
15
MR. GROVE:
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Now, if
Document: 01019354934
Page: 100
JUDGE TYMKOVICH:
That's a different
issue.
You know, it
10
11
different philosophy.
12
13
14
track record.
15
16
17
18
implementation?
19
MR. GROVE:
You
20
21
22
newspaper.
Document: 01019354934
Page: 101
have indicated.
3
4
Tymkovich:
But
MR. GROVE:
perfect.
substantial.
JUDGE HARTZ:
It only needs to be
10
perfect.
I mean, as I said,
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Document: 01019354934
Page: 102
10
11
12
that.
13
behind it.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Document: 01019354934
Page: 103
a good fit.
2
3
MR. GROVE:
questions in there.
JUDGE HARTZ:
there.
MR. GROVE:
10
donors might.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
JUDGE HARTZ:
Document: 01019354934
Page: 104
DVD.
disclosure, right?
6
7
8
9
10
MR. GROVE:
That's right.
I'm not
donor information.
MR. GROVE:
11
earmark donations.
12
13
14
15
16
17
rely on as well.
18
19
20
21
22
That's a bonus.
If that
JUDGE HARTZ:
Document: 01019354934
Page: 105
I mean,
constitutionally satisfactory.
MR. GROVE:
10
11
expenditure.
12
13
14
15
16
JUDGE HARTZ:
17
that information?
18
19
20
21
22
That's
Document: 01019354934
Page: 106
supporters?
8
9
MR. GROVE:
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
moneyed interests."
21
22
already.
And then
Document: 01019354934
Page: 107
JUDGE TYMKOVICH:
What do we do about
exemption?
that doctrine?
MR. GROVE:
10
11
12
have to disclose.
13
14
15
resounding yes.
16
JUDGE TYMKOVICH:
Do you think -- is
17
18
19
of the expenditure?
20
MR. GROVE:
21
22
Document: 01019354934
Page: 108
is $250.
To address Judge
Now, I understand --
JUDGE HARTZ:
MR. GROVE:
I understand that we
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
JUDGE TYMKOVICH:
19
20
21
22
Document: 01019354934
Page: 109
electioneering communications?
10
MR. GROVE:
In other words,
Wouldn't
But
11
12
13
14
JUDGE TYMKOVICH:
15
MR. GROVE:
We know --
How so?
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Document: 01019354934
Page: 110
it, great."
JUDGE TYMKOVICH:
But why is it so
Aren't there
10
11
12
time costs?
13
complicated.
14
MR. GROVE:
It is doable.
The question
15
16
17
JUDGE TYMKOVICH:
Really, in our
18
19
20
MR. GROVE:
21
22
Document: 01019354934
Page: 111
through them.
United.
8
9
10
11
We
JUDGE TYMKOVICH:
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Document: 01019354934
Page: 112
10
11
12
13
14
information about.
15
JUDGE HARTZ:
16
17
18
disclosed.
19
20
21
22
MR. GROVE:
Is that correct?
If the Denver Post did what
Yes.
Document: 01019354934
Page: 113
JUDGE HARTZ:
there?
MR. GROVE:
Doesn't everybody
That's
10
11
12
13
cases say.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
paper.
22
JUDGE HARTZ:
Document: 01019354934
Page: 114
you learning?
MR. GROVE:
JUDGE HARTZ:
learning.
MR. GROVE:
JUDGE HARTZ:
9
10
11
MR. GROVE:
12
13
information in hand.
14
examples.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Document: 01019354934
Page: 115
recalls.
because it's --
8
9
JUDGE HARTZ:
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
is.
17
18
19
pieces in Colorado?
20
21
22
Document: 01019354934
Page: 116
MR. GROVE:
valuable.
actually be required.
That
And
10
11
12
13
14
15
JUDGE PHILLIPS:
16
17
18
19
20
21
something.
22
Document: 01019354934
Page: 117
8
9
10
MR. GROVE:
advertisement.
Sure, that's an
pretty easy.
11
JUDGE PHILLIPS:
12
JUDGE TYMKOVICH:
Okay.
I want to come back to
13
14
digital platform.
15
16
17
18
about.
19
20
You click there and you can watch the movie. It's
21
22
Document: 01019354934
Page: 118
MR. GROVE:
10
11
12
13
14
spending threshold.
15
16
focused on --
17
JUDGE TYMKOVICH:
18
19
20
digital dissemination?
21
22
MR. GROVE:
electioneering --
Document: 01019354934
Page: 119
JUDGE TYMKOVICH:
It seems to me that
money exchanging.
10
You
MR. GROVE:
But
11
12
13
disseminate it.
14
electioneering communications.
15
16
17
18
19
have here.
20
21
22
JUDGE TYMKOVICH:
I mean, if there's
I don't think so
either.
JUDGE HARTZ:
Let me -- if Citizens
Document: 01019354934
Page: 120
MR. GROVE:
We decided that
If it satisfied a regular
10
JUDGE HARTZ:
11
12
MR. GROVE:
It depends on -- it depends
13
It depends on if it's an
14
15
16
need to be disclosed.
17
18
19
20
But I think
21
22
JUDGE TYMKOVICH:
Document: 01019354934
Page: 121
2
3
MR. GROVE:
electioneering communication --
4
5
That's more of an
JUDGE TYMKOVICH:
Non-expressed
advocacy, yes.
MR. GROVE:
Right.
That's
But I guess to
10
be difficult to draw.
11
12
of time.
13
14
JUDGE HARTZ:
sorry.
15
MR. GROVE:
I tried.
16
JUDGE TYMKOVICH:
17
JUDGE HARTZ:
If it
18
19
20
21
22
whole project?
Document: 01019354934
Page: 122
MR. GROVE:
yes.
JUDGE HARTZ:
MR. GROVE:
To the ad.
To what needs to be
JUDGE HARTZ:
10
11
12
13
14
secretary.
Is that correct?
15
MR. GROVE:
16
JUDGE HARTZ:
17
MR. GROVE:
18
19
20
21
22
MR. OLSON:
Document: 01019354934
Page: 123
2
3
4
JUDGE HARTZ:
effective?
MR. OLSON:
JUDGE HARTZ:
MR. OLSON:
Court's time.
Okay.
But I know I'm taking the
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
You asked a
Document: 01019354934
Page: 124
types of media.
10
11
JUDGE TYMKOVICH:
MR. OLSON:
13
JUDGE TYMKOVICH:
15
12
14
So it's a
Pardon me?
I don't think Turner
16
17
18
19
20
presumptively unconstitutional.
21
22
But there is
We have distinctions
Document: 01019354934
Page: 125
newspaper.
8
9
A Denver Post
Somebody
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
about.
17
It
18
19
20
to talk.
21
22
Of
Document: 01019354934
Page: 126
already.
8
9
It's been
JUDGE HARTZ:
If this
10
11
12
13
14
record.
15
There's information in
16
17
18
information.
19
And
MR. OLSON:
20
21
22
record is it?
I mean, how
Document: 01019354934
Page: 127
JUDGE HARTZ:
United?
exemption.
regulator to do?
10
By the
MR. OLSON:
From a constitutional --
11
12
13
14
15
16
same that the Denver Post, the New York Times, NPR
17
do.
18
19
20
21
22
Document: 01019354934
Page: 128
And there
10
11
12
constitutional muster.
13
But
14
15
16
17
18
19
chance to speak.
20
21
22
Document: 01019354934
Page: 129
8
9
JUDGE HARTZ:
But the
The
10
11
three minutes.
12
13
MR. OLSON:
now then.
14
JUDGE HARTZ:
15
MR. OLSON:
One minute.
Your Honor, I think that
16
17
18
say, how you say it, when you say it and the
19
20
21
22
And that is
Document: 01019354934
Page: 130
JUDGE HARTZ:
MR. OLSON:
JUDGE HARTZ:
Thank you.
Thank you, Your Honor.
It's always tough when you
time.
10
11
12
13
14
soon.
15
Court is in
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Document: 01019354934
Page: 131
CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIBER
2
3
my ability.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
_____________________
15
Benjamin Graham
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Document: 01019354934
Page: 132
25 105:2
A-25 102:21
27 54:20 76:19
ability 110:5
28 75:10
adequately 47:18
above-entitled 1:12
administering 12:16
absent 19:7
29th 16:19
3
addressed 14:18
38:11 58:2
adjourned 109:15
3 3:3
abstract 67:7
administrative 43:1
48:1,5
acceptable 95:8
adopted 57:4
$251 87:10
$50,000 9:18
38 3:4
accompany 92:20
4
49 3:6
accountant 89:7
4th 16:20
accurate 37:2
5
5,000 9:17
10-second 67:19
14 106:7
6
69 3:7
1525 2:4
15th 16:19
18 102:21
1981 90:21
80257 1:18
2
2,000-pound 64:8
20036-5306 2:8
9
9 31:4 33:22 34:5,14
71:18 72:17 88:2
89:21,22 90:4
96:22 97:6
2010 85:9
90 88:7
2014 1:10
915 85:11
2-1 55:1
24 75:9 76:14 105:2
advertised 100:18
7(a)(b)(3 29:12
1823 1:17
20 68:3 76:16
acknowledge 58:1
70:21 80:6
7 1:10
8
80203 2:4
advances 85:17
advertise 30:16 31:1
90:10
advance 13:2
achievement 63:4
account 17:22
18:1,6 64:19
advertisement
20:11,16 24:6
30:19,20 31:8 96:9
100:11
advertisements 15:2
advertising 17:6
21:1 22:19 27:3
29:20 35:3 39:19
72:6,12,15 100:21
ad 15:21 19:19
20:1,3,8,10 23:5
24:8,13 25:11 30:1
43:16 45:1 46:15
60:14 80:13 90:16
99:13,16 101:6
advocating 13:4
additional
36:7,17,18
address 22:9 87:3
advocates 109:9
affirmatively 67:12
afterwards 8:17 9:3
27:12
against 19:18
52:20,21 89:11
94:3 99:19
age 27:5
Document: 01019354934
Page: 133
announced 48:5
agenda 72:18
aggregate 65:13
answered 12:9
31:22
answering 4:16
appreciate 49:1
approve 55:17
Alabama 95:9
approved 50:9
attorneys 41:3
alleged 15:18
answer's 29:2
anticipated 27:8
attributes 27:10
34:9
antiestablishment
71:13
audio 110:4
alternative 70:17
anybody 96:21
author 34:19,21
35:1,4
am 110:6,7
arguing 38:22
Avenue 2:7
apology 4:2
arguments 38:10,15
47:8
B
Bailey 28:13
appeal 43:15
Arkansas 50:19
balanced 43:11
articulated 109:3
ago 44:17
agreement 95:20
ahead 4:21 9:1 27:7
53:16
air 89:11
ambiguities 40:18
42:3
ambiguous 38:19
64:5
amend 12:12
amendment 41:7,9
45:4 48:17 50:7
52:5 54:20 55:18
56:2 57:10 59:12
61:16 62:1 68:19
76:19 77:1,4
108:22
anywhere 40:5
amicus 109:12
appearance 54:7
65:1
appear 27:11
appeared 33:1
articulates 64:2
attenuated 64:5
bandwidth 35:19
aspect 14:22
banner 15:22
aspects 27:12
amounted 91:9
analysis 50:12
asserting 78:14
analyze 71:20
appendix 102:22
assess 75:11
analyzed 77:13
application 41:10
58:1
assume 21:18
attempting 61:3,4
as-applied 47:17
49:14
analyzing 70:3
Document: 01019354934
Page: 134
94:2
blurred 27:4
board 16:17 98:5
108:1
bonus 83:11
book 6:15 14:4,5
28:19
29:3,10,21,22
30:1,8,16
34:20,21,22 39:22
40:2,7,11
99:1,4,11,17
100:18 101:2,11
books 29:11,13,22
31:1 39:21
40:3,8,15 84:8
99:5
benefit 82:5
Benjamin 110:3,15
best 23:17 24:3
71:17 110:4
better 55:12 77:1
bias 73:5
billboard 5:8
brand 108:3,4
brief 14:18 24:19
38:16 43:6,14
44:21 54:4
60:2,18,22 61:1
66:11 77:10
102:22
billionaire 59:9
81:17 93:17
binding 40:21
blessed 109:8
blog 27:14
28:15,16,17 34:8
104:2,4,5
blogger 26:7 27:1
34:10,15 52:21
87:19
broadcasters 31:20
39:13 50:4 57:11
59:6 63:12
broader 18:12 36:4
75:19
brothers 94:16
brought 59:19 66:11
Brown 70:2
Buckley 65:3,17
66:1
bucks 81:11 97:9
budget 15:8 16:4
burden 46:16
50:18,22 58:8,10
64:6,7,11 68:1
69:22 88:12
89:15,18
burdens 41:18
48:12,13 51:15
53:3,8,11 57:18
58:22 88:18
104:19 107:11
burdensome 43:4
69:19 95:18
107:18
business 19:14 21:8
29:9,11 30:4,6,17
34:6 40:10,15,17
41:5 45:8 46:1
47:2 56:7 60:19,20
61:3 80:21 89:4
99:8
buy 8:16 9:10,16,17
12:5 24:9 29:21
30:1 39:20 96:1,9
blogs 27:8,22
104:3,6
broadcasted 5:7
buying 9:2,3,4
broadcaster 32:13
44:4 61:20 72:22
buys 8:10
Bloomberg 93:17
Byron 1:16
C
cable 31:15
campaign 12:17
24:15 69:11 93:21
campaign-related
71:2
candidate
5:11,12,13 7:9
13:5 16:16
19:5,8,17,18,19,22
20:1,3 21:11
24:1,8 25:1 30:15
33:6 34:22
39:13,15
63:20,21,22 65:20
66:6 67:15
72:20,21 81:9
82:20 85:14 87:4
88:5,8 89:10 93:16
100:1 102:18
candidates 15:20
41:11
carry 66:20
carving 89:18
case 1:2 5:1 8:9,14
10:12 14:17,20
22:1 28:12 35:8
42:5 50:19,20
52:15 53:4 57:2
58:2,5 63:6,16
65:12 66:17 68:17
69:9 70:1,8,16,21
71:5 72:8 74:2
77:12 78:16 82:8
86:8,14 88:13
90:21 91:4 103:4
109:10
cases 28:6 45:18
66:3,19 69:16
80:3,4 92:13
103:17
Document: 01019354934
Page: 135
93:16
ceiling 71:2
Circuit 1:1,16
center 41:7
circulating 74:19
clearer 38:10
circulation 99:4
circumstances
102:14
clearly 23:20,21
30:9 32:21,22
48:12 65:9
74:12,17
certain 45:14,22
46:1 70:18 93:16
102:13
certainly 9:12,13
17:11,17 23:19
27:22 30:18 32:5
70:1 73:11 74:10
78:15 88:10 90:12
92:8 93:20
98:10,13
CERTIFICATE
110:1
certify 110:3
cetera 26:16
challenge 42:21 47:9
48:10 49:13,14,17
52:9,11 53:2 67:2
77:1 102:19
challenged 47:20
49:12 71:1
challenges 69:11
chance 107:19
Chappaquiddick
91:3
characteristics
103:6
circumstance 17:10
coming 67:15
75:12,18 80:14
81:1,14,21 87:20
88:6 105:12
command 36:21
commensurate
89:15
click 96:20
cite 28:12
clicked 35:20
commentary 26:15
cited 28:12
comments 96:13
clarified 40:2
Charles 93:17
class 44:1
check 36:7
classification 62:4
checking 36:17
clause 6:9,11
clock 4:15
commercial
71:19,20,21 72:2
85:12
commercials 67:19
90:5
closed 37:15
closely 78:13
Commission 28:13
47:1 51:11 52:8
106:4,11
clues 92:22
commit 94:4
CNN 31:16
committee 17:21
18:15,20 19:10
30:11 82:20 87:13
client's 46:17
CO 2:4
colleague 12:11
collect 24:20
Colorado 1:9,17 2:2
3:3 6:1 7:4,11
10:21 16:18 19:6
24:11,13 27:22
45:8 51:22 52:3,16
54:19,22 58:19
59:4,6 60:2 66:7
76:4,12,15 77:5
78:1 86:20 94:19
107:22
Colorado's 10:21
73:21 76:7 80:1
99:18,19 100:8
comes 21:15 24:11
41:15 76:6 81:20
83:12 89:16 107:2
committees 16:16,17
19:4
communicated 13:7
14:2 61:12
communication
5:6,7,13 6:13
7:10,16,21 8:5,7
11:10,11 12:3
13:15 14:20 15:14
16:3,5,8 18:13
22:4 24:15 26:3
27:20 28:5,20
30:19 32:18
33:1,2,3 35:6
36:4,8,12 37:10
38:3 39:18,20
41:20 43:21 45:2,3
46:12,16 57:20
Document: 01019354934
Page: 136
concrete 75:9
contains 16:7
conduit 35:17
content 20:4,13
27:18 31:10 32:2
34:2 41:19 43:17
44:9 53:9 57:21
60:1,13 61:6 62:14
71:6,9,14
72:1,2,14 74:1
75:19 78:19 99:13
103:1
confusion 86:7
Congress 38:21
95:13
congressman 24:10
connected 63:20,22
Connecticut 2:7
connection 50:21
54:10 63:13,14
66:9
conservatives 44:11
consider 8:12,13
50:8 75:6
consideration 50:7
considered 7:17,18
9:19 18:9 26:11
32:2 66:14 100:18
considering 50:1
consistent 16:7
65:16 66:1
constitution 36:22
59:17 101:12
constitutional 25:21
38:17 44:14 50:17
52:5 53:19 57:5,10
59:11 86:4 95:4
106:10 107:12,14
constitutionality
4:13 51:6 84:12
87:13
constitutionally
45:20 57:13 84:1,4
construed 36:22
52:7,10
contain 15:18,19
contained 29:10
content-neutral
59:18
context 27:3 58:3
65:12 68:8 72:4,5
74:9,22 77:17 78:5
79:12 86:14
89:18,21,22
14:8,9,12 58:17
86:9 95:7
corporations 86:10
corporation's
85:16,17
correct 5:14 7:4,5
18:22 19:1
23:4,6,16 25:8
28:21 36:5 37:1
91:19 101:14
corresponds 96:4
corruption
54:7,8,12 63:14
64:1,18,22 65:1,21
70:14
contextual 92:19,22
contribute 19:5
45:13,14 51:18
105:15
contributing 39:10
63:21 81:9
contribution 39:3
59:9 65:13 70:7
83:14
contributions 64:21
65:2,22 69:15,16
70:15 94:14
contributors 39:2
46:7
convince 82:6
coordinated 65:20
coordinating 98:16
coordination 19:8
30:8,14,16
copyright 97:11
core 41:7 45:4
corporation
count 89:8
country 21:21
104:13
countywide 7:7
couple 44:17 76:3
77:8 81:11 95:13
course 12:15 19:14
30:5 34:5
40:9,14,17 42:14
45:7 46:22 51:5
59:18 60:19,20
61:2,3,9 65:10
105:1
court 1:1,15 5:19 6:1
38:13 40:10 41:6
42:16 43:2
44:13,17 45:12
Document: 01019354934
Page: 137
Appellee 1:6
D
D.C 11:16
damaging 107:21
danger 63:22
dates 16:18 95:9
David 93:17
days 96:1
deference 41:13
determination 47:14
definitely 94:6
determine 72:15
85:16
determined 23:16
determines 23:7
deterring 70:13
definitions 40:5
devoid 82:8
Delaware 7:9
devoted 27:15
delivered 5:9
dicta 65:15
dealing 58:11
Democrat 44:10
dictionary 61:14
deals 48:16
Democrats 27:16
differ 7:15
difference 26:6
27:2,19 44:1
55:16,21 105:9
decides 72:18
depending 16:21
31:10
differentiation
103:5,8
differentiations
45:22
DC 2:8
deal 26:10 63:17
84:21,22 104:9
debates 39:14,15
debating 51:6
decades 39:1
December 16:20
deciding 61:7
106:11,20
decision 48:5 73:21
109:7
decisions 53:7 58:13
78:3
deposit 13:3
Deputy 2:3
decline 44:13
describe 94:6
deemed 33:11
describes 6:19
deep 25:14
description 34:20
defeat 13:5
designation 10:3
defend 48:9
designed 69:12
Defendants-
different 14:14
22:22 29:2,3
42:13,20 51:16
53:3 54:1 60:9
66:2 67:9 72:4,22
76:15 79:3,9,11
86:14 88:12 89:4
91:6 103:5 106:17
differential 41:18
differently 76:12
99:4
difficult 38:19 53:11
78:15 100:10
Digest 90:19,21,22
92:12
digging 95:6
digital 31:14 32:1
34:14 96:14,15
Document: 01019354934
Page: 138
donor 81:3,4
83:9,12 84:3,6
directly 5:8
disclosures 19:4
43:5 45:10
64:11,21 93:21
94:13
directs 10:4
discount 55:8
disappear 27:12
discern 104:6
discriminate 49:18
52:20,21
discharge 48:1
discriminates 57:17
distributing 7:21
10:21
disclaimer 14:10
17:9,12 67:6,8,9
68:6,12 82:17
discrimination 44:1
53:2 56:8 58:4
71:5 73:10
distribution 13:2
15:12 61:17
disclosable 14:21
discriminatory
108:17
discuss 58:3
doable 89:14
discussed 10:12
doctrine 86:5
drop-ins 55:2
discussion 102:15
104:21
documentary 58:18
due 75:7
Doe 70:3
Dunn 2:7
duplicating 19:20
disfavorable 73:2
disseminate 44:16
98:5,13
discloses 53:19,20
disseminates 72:3
disseminating 72:1
88:17
disclosure 8:2
13:9,17 14:10
16:15,18 17:1,2
18:21 20:16 22:15
23:3,11 25:4 33:8
36:21
37:5,6,10,14,22
50:13 51:16
53:18,22 57:10
58:2,4,9 62:22
68:5,11 69:18,21
70:4,6,11,16 73:4
77:12,13,17
distinguishing 50:21
103:17
distortion 95:1
distribute 58:18
distributed 5:10
6:7,20 15:1 35:17
64:12
dissemination 97:20
donates 87:5
donation 7:18
8:11,13,20 10:5
11:8 13:15 18:3
35:2 37:4,9 86:18
87:16
distinctions
45:13,16 46:8
103:21
donations 7:13,17
13:12 17:22
83:11,19 84:13
87:11 101:4
distinguish 28:15,16
Document: 01019354934
Page: 139
102:18 106:4,11
electioneering 5:6
6:13 7:1,10,16
8:4,21 10:2,9 12:2
13:15 14:14,15,18
15:14,19
16:3,5,8,9,13
18:13 22:3 24:15
26:2 28:5,20 31:9
32:22 36:4,8,10,12
46:12 74:16 80:21
84:10 86:21 87:2
88:1 97:13,22
98:14 99:14
100:3,7 101:8
102:10,16
everyone 53:19
everything 16:17
57:12 96:2
enormous 98:9
evidentiary 94:10
enormously
38:17,18
ex 81:10
entirely 75:3
entities 55:9
entitled 50:3,5 86:4
entity 7:21 12:1
13:11 32:14,17
36:3 37:3,8
exact 72:2
entry 17:8
equal 53:9
examples 93:14
exceed 37:11
electoral 56:11
equally 107:11
108:1,7
electorate 70:13
equipped 27:6
equivalent 6:4
excess 10:7
editorials 93:5
exchanging 98:7
eliminate 52:10
especially 63:17
65:19
effective 69:18
101:22 102:3
efforts 9:5
else's 104:5
emotional 43:15
edition 25:18
26:5,11
editions 26:20
editor 26:15
74:8,12,21 79:10
98:3,4
editorial 19:12,20
26:14 75:1,2 78:21
elastic 38:19
elasticity 104:9
elected 85:19
electing 56:22
election 8:5 10:22
13:4 16:20 27:11
39:16 45:11 46:22
51:11 52:7 58:20
68:18 72:18 85:14
elections 45:15
58:15 76:15 93:22
104:13
enable 38:10
encompassed 32:3
encumbrance 10:3
endorsed 20:3
endorsements 19:13
26:14
evaluation 80:17
endorses 19:22
enforcer 41:2
104:10
engage 92:14
evenhanded 107:10
even-handed 57:22
event 84:9
everybody 74:13
75:2 92:2
Document: 01019354934
Page: 140
100:7
favorably 71:10
exemptions 6:9
19:12 26:13 46:18
expressed 10:14,17
23:1 74:18 85:21
favorite 61:19,20
five-pound 64:8
favors 105:7
flag 92:15
exempts 63:11
expressing 74:12
flat 70:18
exercise 56:21
expressly 13:4
FECA's 6:12
flexibility 62:7
exhaust 48:1
extend 65:6,7
FEC's 10:11
Floor 2:4
exist 6:5
extension 34:5
fly 48:6
expect 25:4
ex-wife 81:9
expend 73:1
Exxon 80:18
federal 46:22
47:11,14 49:8,11
51:3,6,10,15
52:6,7 68:9,12
106:4,11
feeling 100:16
expenditure 7:15
9:22 12:3
14:4,9,19
17:15,17,20
18:9,11 20:4,9,20
21:12 22:3 24:14
25:7 26:3 28:20
33:17 35:3,21,22
36:2,9 37:16 39:5
66:5 67:6,8,10
80:12 82:19,21
84:2,11 86:19
87:2,16 97:13 98:2
105:16
F
face 47:13,15
49:6,19 108:20
fill 45:9
file 45:10
film 8:14 10:19,20
14:21 15:3,8,11,17
16:6 18:7 35:15
88:17
focusing 65:14
folks 92:15 98:16
footnote 60:17,22
Ford 90:12,14
foreign 45:13 46:6
forfeited 66:12
films 76:3
finance 12:17 69:12
factors 62:9
financed 78:9
forms 45:9
expenditures 10:7
12:22 13:19 14:15
18:1,20 54:10
63:18 64:19
65:2,18,19,20 67:4
69:15 70:15 74:17
82:13,17 86:22
87:22 94:3
factual 61:10
finances 95:7
formulation 77:15
failed 95:13
finding 42:8
forth 103:3
finely 42:12
Fire 4:20
Foundation
90:13,14
expenses 18:8
falls 13:17
fascinating 69:9
exposabout 24:7
favor 89:10
exposing 65:1
favorable 19:16
73:2
fallen 67:9
final 12:19
firm 17:6
first 4:11 5:11 16:4
31:12 41:7,9 45:4
48:17 50:7 55:18
56:2 59:12 61:16
62:1,13 68:19
77:1,4,8 82:7
108:21
fit 77:9,17,21 78:1
Document: 01019354934
Page: 141
gotten 46:4
functional 6:4
govern 41:11
government 53:22
56:10,11,18 61:7
64:17 106:18
107:1,13
governmental 28:14
63:2 70:11
77:19,20
government's
60:17,22
governor 99:18,19
funnel 18:5
Graham 110:3,15
grant 34:21 49:10
G
Gazette 23:10
general 2:3 11:8
18:4 26:4 27:9
37:8 39:8 40:22
78:17 80:11 83:15
88:18 90:4,11 95:7
generally 11:11
13:20 34:18 79:21
94:21
general's 56:4
generate 62:4
geographic 76:8
Gessler 1:5 5:2
gets 90:20
getting 25:14 80:16
81:2
Gibson 2:7
gift 13:3
given 49:10
giving 11:18 101:19
glossy 23:21
gone 68:15 108:10
granted 6:2
great 5:5 83:15 89:3
90:3 95:10 104:9
greatest 23:14
30:3,7,18
31:3,18,21 32:5,15
33:15 34:4,11,17
35:4,14 36:6,13,16
37:2,6,17 38:2
69:6,8 71:15
73:11,18 74:10,22
75:14
76:2,10,13,17 77:7
78:15 79:19 80:5
82:2,7 83:6,10
84:5 85:8 86:6,20
87:9 88:10,15
89:14,20 90:11
91:20 92:6
93:2,7,11 95:2
96:8 97:5,21 98:10
99:7,12 100:2,6,15
101:1,7,15,17
guess 4:2 100:8
Green 27:16
guy 61:21
105:4,6,10,13
GREGORY 1:14
grey 25:15
ground 24:2 42:1
group 75:16
Grove 2:3 3:2,5
4:18,20 5:3,14,20
6:3,11,21
7:5,11,20
8:1,12,22 9:2,7,12
10:10,18 11:21
12:7,11,14
13:8,14,20 14:6,13
15:6,11,16
17:11,16 18:10,15
19:1,7 20:7,15,21
21:4,14 22:5,9,18
23:5,12,17 24:16
25:9,14,19
26:1,12,18,22 27:9
28:11 29:1,16
H
hand 5:9 15:2
44:20,21 70:13
73:13 93:13
handicap 64:9
handicapped 105:6
hands 40:19 95:18
104:10
5:5,17,22 6:6,18
7:1,8,12,22 8:9,19
9:1,6,9,21 10:16
11:14 12:6,9,12,21
13:13,18,22 14:7
15:4,10,15 17:9,14
18:8,14,18 19:2,11
20:12,17 21:3,6,17
22:8,11,20 23:7,15
24:5 25:5,12,17,20
26:9,13,19 27:7
28:8,18 29:13,20
30:4,13,22 31:11
38:6,8 47:3,6
48:19 49:4
51:2,8,22 52:3
53:15 64:15
67:1,14 68:9,21
69:2,7 74:5,15
75:8,15
76:8,11,14,22 80:9
82:4,22 83:8,22
84:16 87:8
91:15,22 92:1,22
93:3,8 94:8 98:22
99:10 100:13,17
101:6,9,16,19
102:2,7 105:8
106:3 108:8,14
109:4,6
Hartz's 87:4
haven't 25:15 42:16
46:4 68:15
happened 106:3
happens 69:10
91:10,11
head 22:12
Document: 01019354934
Page: 142
108:6
impact 98:2
hypotheticals 9:13
98:15
impermissible
107:17
independently 66:8
implementation
79:18
implicit 9:16
indication 94:15
implied 10:14,17
hereby 110:3
here's 88:11
herself 82:19
ideas 61:12,15,17,18
106:15
he's 105:6
Hey 24:21
Hickenlooper 99:17
high 34:17 103:19
higher 87:15
highlights 69:10
highly 94:1
hiring 41:3
history 23:14
hit 24:22 91:9,10
93:16 94:18
identical 20:5,13
106:12
identified 39:3 62:9
identifies 102:17
identify 4:21 15:20
identity 41:19 43:18
50:14 56:8 57:19
71:6 82:11
identity-based
62:3,4
hold 97:9
ideological 27:14
43:12 60:6,11,12
61:14,15 62:11
86:2,10 98:7
HONARABLE 1:13
ignores 70:4
hoc 66:19,20
66:4 69:14,22
74:16 80:12 82:21
84:10 86:22 94:3
105:16
hypothetical 33:19
73:12
I
I'd 31:13 77:2 81:22
92:17
97:10 100:11
102:8 104:1
influence 10:21
61:5,9
inform 54:16
information 55:2
63:15 64:3 70:12
78:11 81:12,13
83:9,12,16 84:17
85:1 88:9 90:17
91:12,14 92:19
93:13,20 94:5,20
95:4,14 105:12,18
107:8,9
informational 34:15
76:5,6 83:21 86:17
89:16 90:3 92:2,8
inhibit 58:10
initial 29:5
initiative 55:20
included 6:15
insert 20:18
21:1,9,22
includes 63:13
inserted 20:19
inclusive 63:11
instance 96:7
independent 7:15
9:22 10:6 13:19
14:3,9 17:15,16,20
18:9,11,19 19:9
20:4,9,20 21:12
22:2 24:14 25:7
28:19 37:16 39:5
54:10 63:18 64:18
institutional 43:8
60:5 72:8
instruction 10:3
interest 56:18
63:3,5,16 64:1,17
Document: 01019354934
Page: 143
John 99:17
iterations 66:2
journalism 43:11
judge 4:2,19,21
5:5,17,22 6:6,18
7:1,8,12,22 8:9,19
9:1,6,9,21 10:16
11:14 12:6,9,12,21
13:13,18,22 14:7
15:4,10,15 17:9,14
18:8,14,18 19:2,11
20:12,17 21:3,6,17
22:8,11,20 23:7,15
24:5 25:5,12,17,20
26:9,13,19 27:7
28:8,18
29:13,18,20
30:4,13,22
31:11,13,19,22
32:8 33:10,21
34:7,13,19 35:9,21
36:11,14,19
37:3,13,20
38:5,6,7,8
41:12,21 42:15
43:1,22 44:9 45:11
46:17 47:3,6 48:19
49:4 50:13
51:2,8,22 52:2,3
53:15,17 54:17
56:13 57:7 59:15
62:2,17 63:8 64:15
67:1,14 68:9,21
69:2,7 71:9 72:17
73:16 74:5,15
75:8,15
76:8,11,14,22 78:6
79:3 80:9 82:4,22
83:8,22 84:16
86:1,16 87:3,8,18
88:14 89:6,17 90:8
91:15,22 92:1,22
93:3,8 94:8 95:15
96:11,12 97:17
98:1,20,22
99:10,22
100:4,13,16,17
101:6,9,16,19
102:2,7 103:10,13
105:8 106:3
108:8,14 109:4,6
judged 106:1
judgment 96:22
jurisprudence 53:7
justification
54:11,13 70:6
103:19
justify 77:4 89:18
K
Kennedy 91:3
kick 37:22
Kindle 40:9
kinds 51:11
Klan 75:16
Klux 75:16
knew 95:10
knife's 11:2
Koch 93:18 94:16
Ku 75:16
L
label 23:9 61:13
labor 80:18
lack 64:17 92:19
Ladue 53:4 63:6
language 6:7 43:5
Document: 01019354934
Page: 144
liberal 44:11
Libertarians 27:17
licensed 32:13
light 65:2 70:14
lightly 106:19
likely 20:10 97:12
likewise 33:22
latitude 76:18
limitation 6:19
leads 41:1
Limbaugh 73:14
limitations 6:8
limited 14:2 29:6
learning 93:1,4,6,8
104:1
link 33:12,16
leave 24:4
leaves 11:22
legislation 50:9 57:1
legislature 55:19
57:4,5,9
listeners 73:22
litigation 41:2
49:11,12 52:14
little 61:21 72:10
88:6
live 56:6
length 106:1,13,21
loan 13:2
Lobbyists 45:14
lesser 62:5
local 59:1,2,5
longer 102:5
loophole 37:15,18
lot 9:9,13,16 24:2
McCutcheon 10:12
64:20 70:9
M
Maddow 73:14
MCFL 86:2,6,7,8
magazine
21:7,10,13,15
22:1,6 23:8 91:2
magic 99:20
mail 92:17
mailbox 23:22
mailed 5:9
Maine 28:13
mainly 21:15
meant 65:9
measures 107:22
mailer 23:21
margins 78:16
marketing 17:4
mass 6:14 14:2,5
28:22 29:7 40:4
matter 1:12 8:21
27:13 36:16 54:21
70:3 71:4 91:11
108:1
matters 26:1 74:22
82:11
medicine 39:11
medium 24:6 26:1
28:2 33:22 43:20
57:20 103:18
108:19
meet 109:2
meets 7:19
mentioned 94:11
mentions 39:9 48:15
merely 35:16
merits 4:15
message 13:6 14:1
Document: 01019354934
Page: 145
Mexican 81:17
Netflix 35:11
Non-expressed
100:4
Mexico 59:10
neutral 44:11
53:9,10 60:2 71:10
nonprofit 58:17
86:2 95:8
Mountain 11:15
12:8 19:21 20:2,14
81:4
nontraditional
71:12
mind 55:16
news 19:12,21
20:2,14 26:14
28:16 31:4,15
33:22 34:5,14
71:18,22 72:3,18
73:13 75:21
88:3,18 89:21,22
90:4 96:16,19,22
97:1,2,6
minimum 82:15
movie-maker 45:7
newscast 90:1
Minneapolis 50:19
movie-making
35:10
newspaper 5:8
19:15 20:18,19
21:9,22 22:13,21
23:9,20 26:16,20
28:10 31:1
32:11,16 43:10
44:5 61:19,22
74:13 75:2
78:7,17,18 79:1,22
81:16,18,21 87:20
104:1 108:2,3,4
notice 42:10
MGM 35:11
Michael 59:20 60:7
93:17 94:2
middle 24:2
million 81:5 88:3
90:15
millions 73:1 78:9
Minnesota 50:19
minute 58:18
108:9,14
minutes 69:3,4
89:8,10,11
101:20,21 102:1
108:11
missing 94:19,20
mode 72:6
model 21:8 89:4
modern 27:5
moment 29:2
money 10:19
11:6,15 12:1,4
13:3,6,11 17:6
18:6,19 21:19
24:21 25:1 33:5
35:5 37:8,11
39:10,19 78:10
80:16,18,19
81:3,20 83:3 89:2
91:8 92:7 94:15
98:7 102:11 107:2
moneyed 85:20
N
NAACP 95:9
narrow 69:19 77:16
narrowing 35:22
36:1
narrowly 63:4
National 39:8 60:11
nationality 46:1
nationals 45:13
newspapers 21:21
25:3 39:14 55:5
57:12 63:11 90:9
108:7
notwithstanding
50:5
NPR 90:10,12,15
106:16
NRA 94:1
NW 2:7
O
obligation 19:10
37:5,7,10 64:10
obligations 99:2,6
obstacles 79:17
newsworthy 33:11
96:16
obvious 79:17
night 71:16
October 1:10
nightly 90:1
offer 54:3
nine 60:17,22
offers 54:3
non 62:10
obviously 31:10
necessarily 76:10
non-broadcast 44:3
71:11
office 11:16,17
12:5,15 15:21 24:2
56:4
negative 19:16,17
43:13 60:14 107:6
officials 85:19
non-existence 83:18
Oh 76:8 81:10
neighborhood 52:22
Document: 01019354934
Page: 146
75:5 85:11
pages 96:1
opinions 26:14
106:14
opponents 62:20
Parade
21:6,10,13,14
22:1,6
organization
22:13,16 23:2,4
74:7 84:18
88:19,22 95:12
parse 88:19
Olson's 77:15
option 69:19
participate 56:10
57:6,9 58:12,18
61:4 63:13,19 64:2
75:10,22 78:18,20
79:20 81:7 84:20
85:4 93:5,10
96:5,17 104:14,19
105:15
percent 68:3 88:7,8
93:8
perfect 77:9
80:6,7,10
perfectly 72:14
78:8,12
particular 14:17
24:22 44:15 55:8
56:1,2,5 58:8
72:20 84:20 88:5
94:4 103:7
perhaps 22:3
permissible 84:1
particularly 27:4
83:14
ourselves 48:9
parties 1:19
permit 101:13
outcome 110:7
organizations
39:12,13 89:9
oriented 34:16
originally 20:6
outlets 31:16
outsiders 55:3
overhead 11:16
passed 54:20
personal 5:9
pause 51:9
perspective 95:4
online 25:18
26:5,10,17,20,21
over-inclusive
63:5,12
overturned 5:18
paying 90:4
persuade 61:4
op 22:18
owe 4:2
payment 7:18,20
8:11 13:2
persuasive 43:14
op-ed
22:12,13,14,17
74:6,21 75:1
payments 7:17
Philadelphia 81:18
pending 5:21
ownership 59:5
Oxford 40:12,13
open 84:8
openly 48:14
operate 25:3
opinion 23:1 31:15
P
page 3:2 4:7 24:1
75:1,3 78:21
85:11,15 102:21
penny 95:11
people 28:4 29:21
33:13 39:20 44:20
45:22 51:18
54:21,22 55:4,12
pertain 85:12
Document: 01019354934
Page: 147
points 102:5
predated 65:3
political 18:20
19:4,9 22:12 26:7
27:22 28:15 30:11
44:16 55:3 60:21
69:22 71:20 74:3
85:16 98:8 106:15
premise 62:18
problematic 47:10
70:4
prepared 110:4
politician 30:7
preserved 47:18,20
politicians 29:22
104:13
politics 45:9 46:13
48:15 53:6 58:19
66:7,8 76:4
pool 37:7
presumably 52:8
presumed 60:10
pictures 96:3
piece 24:22 74:21
82:12 83:19
91:9,10 93:16 94:5
pieces 68:2 94:19
placed 22:19 24:13
83:3
places 59:7
placing 99:10
plain 50:5
plaintiff 69:20 71:4
Plaintiff-Appellant
1:3 2:5
planning 10:20
plans 88:16
presently 6:3
problem 30:14
42:15,19 44:8 46:9
48:4 51:14 63:9
67:5 88:11
proceed 38:11
proceedings 59:19
produce 10:19 98:12
produced 84:19
91:17
producing 88:17
product 9:3,8
presumptively 51:1
62:15 103:20
production 8:15
15:8 16:4 18:7,8
31:6 39:17 88:20
93:9 99:3
pretty 96:10
profit 95:7
profits 85:18
project 50:20 100:22
101:2
platform 32:1,2
34:14 96:14
possible 70:1
previous 79:11
post 20:2,7,8,22
21:5,19
24:7,9,17,20 25:18
26:5 31:5
32:1,6,7,9,16,20
33:4,11,14 59:1
60:9,10 66:18,20
79:9 91:16,17,20
92:4,9,18 93:4,14
96:1,14 97:2,8,10
104:3 106:16
primarily 17:1
33:22
proper 84:3
posted 32:9
proposition 57:3
postured 49:10
prints 97:1
prospective 83:16
potential 73:5
protect 61:17
powerful 61:22
probably 30:15,22
33:19 36:9 81:1
protected 41:8
playing 71:21
plays 72:22
please 11:7 38:13
55:9 69:8
plenty 103:17
plurality 70:16
pocket 85:19
point 10:14 15:14
27:14 43:19 44:22
49:15,16 68:19
72:7 73:19
74:12,17,18 75:3
81:6 83:18 85:7
87:4
practical 79:17
promise 9:15,16
primary 46:19
promised 9:10
principle 57:16
promote 16:6
principles 68:19
promoting 15:2,17
27:15,16 55:11
prop 72:20
proposing 91:21
protection 86:4
Document: 01019354934
Page: 148
85:4
ran 20:3,5
pursue 48:21
rascals 104:14
recalls 94:4
puts 104:10
received 34:21
provides 79:22
recess 109:13
Q
qualifies 13:14
rationalization
66:20
recognized 45:12
provisions 38:18
50:2
qualify 28:6
rationalizations
66:19
providing 33:16
70:12
publication 23:8
publicity 65:3
publicize 99:11
publicized 94:1
publish 29:14 34:21
published 16:14
40:9,12
publisher 21:22
29:10 34:20 40:14
61:20 79:9 99:1,5
100:18 101:11
quantities 70:18
questions 4:11,17
7:13 12:10 31:12
38:6 73:12 78:16
82:3 87:12 101:18
quite 21:7 34:12
37:18 48:12
quoted 64:16
quoting 65:3
publishers 50:4
publishes 22:14
publishing 29:11
40:15 92:12
puff 24:22 91:10
pull 10:11
purchase 13:2
purchased 79:9
purely 98:7
purpose 10:6
13:4,16 61:16 77:3
R
Rachel 73:14
recent 70:9
recipient 10:4
record 4:22 16:2
75:19 76:1 79:14
82:7 85:2,3,9
104:22
105:1,10,11,14,17,
20,21,22
106:2,13,21
records 51:17 64:11
red 92:15
redraw 44:14
Reed 70:3
refer 7:2 36:1
reference 5:16
referendum 55:20
referred 34:22
refers 5:10,11 7:2
32:10 43:6
regarding 4:7 7:3
23:16 64:16 76:4
reasonable 106:8
reasoning 92:3
regimes 58:2,5
regs 18:18
reassure 82:19
regular 19:13
29:9,10 40:9,14,16
43:10 45:7
raises 91:15
Document: 01019354934
Page: 149
63:1,2,4 77:10,14
82:16 103:11,14
reports 16:11
return 67:1
regularly 27:10
representatives 57:1
regulated 106:1
represents 70:17
regulating 41:16
107:3
Republican 44:10
Republicans 27:16
risks 41:4
regulation 5:17
6:5,19,22 37:1
39:2,6 59:17,21
77:18 79:15
risky 107:18
requirement 5:15,16
6:4 8:2 17:12
37:22 77:16
84:7,8,11 99:9
role 92:10,11,13
secretary's 11:12
35:13 37:1 76:18
secretly 81:18
rulemaking 42:10
section 10:1
seemed 4:5
released 15:12
76:3,4,13,14
requirements 7:19
14:11 17:10
18:16,21 23:11
57:11 67:6,8,9,10
68:5,6,7,11,12,16
77:12,14
relied 70:5
requires 80:15
requiring
67:11,12,20
regulations 23:15
42:12 78:2 90:20
107:15
regulator 40:19
106:9
regulatory 49:17
107:10
relate 50:2
relieve 36:3
reluctant 49:4
rely 83:17 105:4
remains 69:18
remedies 48:1
reserve 49:2
robust 59:13
residences 5:9
resounding 86:15
resources 88:4
S
Samson 87:14
satisfactory 84:4
respective 1:19
repeatedly 41:6
saves 84:12
separate 17:22
46:15 69:21
responses 36:20
scale 106:19,20
separating 50:1
responsible 19:3
scenes 98:16
serious 67:5
restriction 94:9
schedule 16:14,16
Seventh 2:4
reporter 88:20
restrictions 14:8
69:14
schemes 53:18
severability 50:8
scope 19:14
several 88:3
scrutiny 45:17
62:3,5,6,16,20
shaking 21:15
remedy 46:19
repeat 15:4 34:11
43:9 94:11
reporting 18:16
19:19 27:3 83:1
84:2,3 106:14
restrictive 70:17
reticulated 42:12
Document: 01019354934
Page: 150
speaks 55:8
specifically 8:6
11:9,10 35:5 46:5
49:16 91:8 92:7
significant 68:3
similar 26:22 35:7
47:11
similarly 96:22
sound 89:12
sounds 81:14
showing 20:2
shown 66:9 108:10
sides 109:9
sign 52:22 53:5
site 96:15,19
situation 9:15 35:7
six 96:1
skip 90:5
slightly 14:13 29:3
small 82:9 86:10
87:11
so-called 63:14
85:19
Socialist 70:2
solely 24:1
solicitation 93:15
solicited 35:5
somebody 19:18,22
23:2 61:9 74:6
somewhat 18:12
29:6
showed 96:14
49:18,19 50:17,21
51:16 53:8 54:2
57:18 61:9,11 62:8
sources 22:16
Southern 90:21
space 96:9
speech 41:16
43:13,18 44:16
55:11 57:20,21
58:10 59:13 60:13
61:6,7 67:12,18
68:4 69:22 70:19
71:1 85:17 94:9
105:22 107:3
spend 13:11 15:7,17
18:6 28:4 88:16
89:1,2
spending 17:5 70:7
97:14
spent 13:6 16:5
17:3,7 18:19 37:11
91:8
spoken 52:4
speaker 41:19
43:7,8,10,19,20
45:6 53:10
56:1,2,9 58:16
60:4,5 67:17
71:7,11,12 107:8,9
108:2
standard 45:17
62:5,6,12 63:1
speaker-based
45:12,15
speakers 44:2,3
stage 16:13
stand 50:11
standing 48:4,8,10
52:13,15,16,18
Star 50:19
start 4:4,14 14:15
50:20 78:7,16
99:15
starting 4:7
startup 61:21
start-up 78:7 90:9
state 2:2 3:3 4:10 5:4
7:6 12:16,18 28:13
40:21 41:14
42:6,16 43:2
47:4,7,21 48:5
54:3,15,18 55:4,19
56:3 60:2 62:7
64:1,6 66:9 73:7
statements 40:20
107:15
state's 12:15 43:6,14
44:21 60:18 61:1
66:7
States 1:1,15 66:17
station 59:1,2
stations 55:5 59:5
72:9
statue 49:8
stature 72:21
statute 4:8,14 6:10
24:12 25:21 33:14
36:22 38:17
40:5,18 41:4
42:4,17 46:9
47:10,11,13,15
48:2,10 49:5 50:6
51:3,4,7,15 52:4,7
54:13 57:17 58:11
59:17 64:12 73:17
79:15 80:15 87:13
91:19 98:11
101:12 102:19
104:9 105:7
107:14 108:16
109:2
statutes 4:5 104:7
statutory 37:22
53:13 64:13
Document: 01019354934
Page: 151
Sunday 24:9
104:12,15,18,20
109:1
74:2,17 75:2,5,6
79:3 83:6,11,16,17
84:18,22 85:20,21
89:3 90:17 91:12
92:8,18 93:20
96:8,9 97:15,21
98:10,13,18
100:2,6 101:15
107:16,20 108:5
stick 69:4
sticking 31:7
stops 59:16
supporters 85:6
supporting 7:9
11:9,11 19:18,22
21:11
supports 90:13
strict 45:17
62:3,5,15,20 63:3
103:11,14
tape 31:7
taped 23:22
technology 44:15
theory 50:15
Ted 91:3
television 5:7 59:1,2
therefore 24:14
105:17
Tenth 1:1,16
striking 70:7
struck 69:14
stuff 84:19
subject 18:21 20:16
33:7 45:20 59:21
109:1
subjected 46:18
subjects 106:15
submit 45:19 50:10
submits 22:12
subscribed 78:18
subset 36:11
substantial 59:9
73:9 77:17 80:8
85:9 88:21
sufficient 10:22
82:15
sufficiently 56:17
77:18,20
T
tailored 63:4 78:13
79:16
suggest 65:4
tailoring 77:16
suggestion 82:8
suit 42:22
suits 40:22
termed 74:3
terms 13:8,9 57:17
60:3
test 77:10,16
testified 39:21
tests 71:18 109:2
thank 4:18 38:7,8,12
39:9 68:22 101:18
109:4,5,11
that's 5:14,22 6:7
7:5 10:10 11:12
13:9,16 14:6
16:1,12 19:1
20:10,15
23:6,16,17 25:2,19
26:11,22 27:17
28:21 29:1 32:8
33:7,8,18 37:2
38:3 44:16 45:3
46:22 56:7,14
57:21 61:6 64:5,9
70:1 72:16 73:18
themselves 17:13
55:12 82:14
Document: 01019354934
Page: 152
treasury 11:8,12
18:4 37:8 83:15
treat 34:13 76:11
99:3
treated 99:1
treating 101:10
thresholds 87:15
treats 71:10
threw 95:17
trial 40:10
U
U.S 1:16
throughout 43:6
ultimately 12:18
throw 104:14
true 98:10,13
thumb 106:19
unacceptable
108:21
TIMOTHY 1:13
unconstitutional
47:13,15 49:5,9
51:1,3 53:1 55:18
56:15 57:4,22
62:15 64:14
103:20 108:20
Turner 103:4,10,13
tough 109:6
twin 70:11
Tymkovich 1:14
29:18 31:13,19,22
32:8 33:10,21
34:7,13,19 35:9,21
36:11,14,19
37:3,13,20 38:5
41:12,21 42:15
43:22 44:9 45:11
46:17 50:13
62:2,17 63:8 71:9
72:17 73:16 78:6
79:3 80:3 86:1,16
87:18 88:14
89:6,17 90:8 96:12
97:17 98:1,20
99:22 100:4,16
103:10,13
transaction 85:12
TRANSCRIBER
110:1
transcript 38:14
96:2 97:1,7 110:4
transmission 10:4
unclear 39:6
unconnected 66:5
TV 15:21 24:8
31:2,4 55:5 99:10
traditional 43:7
60:4 71:12 103:3
105:7
unambiguously
5:10,11 32:10
T-shirts 8:17
totally 66:5
unambiguous 5:15
uncoordinated
65:19
under-inclusive
63:6,9
uninhibited 59:13
union 80:19
United 1:1,2,15 3:4
4:14 5:1 6:16 8:17
11:5 12:4 15:6
19:3 20:18 21:1,5
23:9,10 38:14 39:4
40:16 44:4,12 46:5
47:1 48:3,12,14
50:2,3 57:13
58:2,5,17 59:22
60:8 61:14
64:16,20 65:4,5,9
66:17 67:4,17
68:10 72:13
75:9,11 76:1,2,12
79:13 82:12 83:2
84:8 85:8 86:3,13
88:13,16 90:7
91:21 94:17,21
95:12,17 96:6 98:5
99:1 104:22
106:6,14
United's 9:5 18:4
60:20
University 40:12,13
unless 28:2 39:3
90:5 97:7 103:18
unusual 4:3
understand 18:18
20:21 26:10 27:4
37:19 38:20
56:13,14 68:21
75:20 87:7,9 95:16
updated 27:10,21
understanding
21:14 36:6 48:22
87:19
unequally 64:12
uneven 62:22
unfit 99:17
Document: 01019354934
Page: 153
VMI 66:17
voice 55:8
56:19,20,21 61:22
voluntarily 67:21
vote 55:1 99:19
V
vacuum 70:4
voted 57:6
vagaries 40:18
90:4 94:21
whose 64:3
widow 87:4
willing 67:4 72:14
window 53:6
wish 19:19 104:19
wished 17:7
wishes 104:11
witness 39:21 40:11
woman 53:5
work 69:12 81:5
W
walks 105:5
workable 107:17
wary 24:18
whatsoever 55:17
works 21:8
Washington 2:8
24:7,9,17,20
WHEREUPON
109:15
world 84:9
veering 33:8
vendor 22:19
waste 48:21
watched 32:19
watching 48:18
ways 77:8 80:22
106:17
weak 54:15
website 32:21 33:12
34:1,4,10,16
97:1,10
we'd 47:21 48:8
White 1:16
whoever 27:17
67:17 83:2 87:5
Virginia 11:17
66:17 67:3 83:1
weeks 58:20
weighed 56:16
whoops 12:10
virtually 49:6
week 32:21
Workers 70:2
worry 48:7,19
worth 88:4 95:19
worthless 79:12
wound 51:15
wrap 108:12
write 29:22
Writers 50:20
writes 22:13
writing 30:8 32:3
40:1
writings 26:3,15
written 10:13,17
34:1,2 50:10 93:5
wrote 22:14 74:20
Y
yet 78:11 79:12
York 23:20 59:7,8
90:22 106:16
Document: 01019354934
Page: 154
Document: 01019354934
Page: 155
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of this CITIZENS UNITEDS OPPOSITION
TO SECRETARYS PETITION FOR REHEARING AND FOR
REHEARING EN BANC, along with the accompanying exhibit, was served on
the following persons via CM/ECF on December 11, 2014:
Daniel D. Domenico
Matthew D. Grove
LeeAnn Morrill
Kathryn Starnella
Colorado Attorney Generals Office
Ralph L. Carr Colorado Judicial Center
1300 Broadway, 6th Floor
Denver, Colorado 80203
dan.domenico@state.co.us
matt.grove@state.co.us
leeann.morrill@state.co.us
kathryn.starnella@state.co.us
Martha M. Tierney
Edward T. Ramey
Heizer Paul, LLP
2401 15th Street, Suite 300
Denver, Colorado 80202
mtierney@hpfirm.com
eramey@hpfirm.com
Attorneys for Intervenor-DefendantAppellees