Sie sind auf Seite 1von 68
 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
THE WASHINGTON POST,
et al.
,
 Plaintiffs
, v. DAVID J. McMANUS, JR.,
et al.
,
 Defendants
. * * * * * Civil Action No. 1:18-cv-02527-PWG * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
B
RIAN
E.
 
F
ROSH
 Attorney General of Maryland J
ULIA
D
OYLE
B
ERNHARDT
 Federal Bar No. 25300 Andrea W. Trento Federal Bar No. 28816 Assistant Attorneys General 200 Saint Paul Place, 20th Floor Baltimore, Maryland 21202  jbernhardt@oag.state.md.us atrento@oag.state.md.us (410) 576-7291 (410) 576-6955 (facsimile) September 12, 2018 Attorneys for Defendants
!"#$ &'&()*+),-.-/)012 34*56$78 -9 :;<$= ,>?&-?&( 0"@$ & 4A 9.
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................. 3
 
Already Existing Records, Reporting, and Disclosure Obligations ......................... 3
 
The 2016 Election ..................................................................................................... 5
 
The Legislative History of the Act ........................................................................... 7
 
The Requirements of the Act .................................................................................... 9
 
Procedural History .................................................................................................. 12
 
ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................................... 13
 
I.
 
S
TANDARD
 .............................................................................................................. 13
 
II.
 
P
LAINTIFFS
A
RE
 N
OT
L
IKELY TO
S
UCCEED ON THE
M
ERITS OF
T
HEIR
C
LAIMS
. .................................................................................................................. 13
 
A.
 
The Act is Subject to “Exacting Scrutiny”—a Form of Intermediate Scrutiny Applicable to Election-Related Communications. ....................... 15
 
B.
 
The Act’s Disclosure and Record-keeping Obligations Do Not Violate the First Amendment. .................................................................................. 17
 
1.
 
The Act’s Disclosure and Record-Keeping Duties Are Substantially Related to Important Government Interests. .............. 17
 
2.
 
The Act Does Not Burden More Speech Than Is Necessary. .......... 19
 
C.
 
The Challenged Provisions are not Unconstitutionally Vague. .................. 23
 
1.
 
Plaintiffs Lack Standing to Challenge the Definition of QPDC, Which Is Not Vague. ........................................................................ 23
 
2.
 
Online Publishers’ Duties Under the Act Are Not Vague. .............. 26
 
D.
 
The Injunctive Remedies Authorized by the Act Are Not Unlawful Prior Restraints. ........................................................................................... 28
 
!"#$ &'&()*+),-.-/)012 34*56$78 -9 :;<$= ,>?&-?&( 0"@$ - 4A 9.
 
ii E.
 
The Act’s Record-Retention Requirements Do Not Give Rise to Unlawful “Seizures.” ................................................................................... 30
 
F.
 
The Act Is Not Preempted by the Communications Decency Act. ............. 32
 
III.
 
T
HE
O
THER
F
ACTORS
T
HAT
W
OULD
S
UPPORT
I
 NJUNCTIVE
ELIEF
A
RE
 N
OT
P
RESENT
. ................................................................................................................. 34
 
CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 35
 
!"#$ &'&()*+),-.-/)012 34*56$78 -9 :;<$= ,>?&-?&( 0"@$ B 4A 9.

Ihre Neugier belohnen

Alles, was Sie lesen wollen.
Jederzeit. Überall. Auf jedem Gerät.
Keine Verpflichtung. Jederzeit kündbar.
576648e32a3d8b82ca71961b7a986505