38-page opinion - Election Law Blog

Case 6:12-cv-00012-CCL Document 168 Filed 10/10/12 Page 32 of 38
As the Ninth Circuit recently acknowledged, "voters in Montana" are
constitutionally entitled to a "full and robust exchange ofviews." Sanders Co.
Republican. C. Comm. v. Bullock, _
F.3d _, 2012 WL 4070122 at '" 1 (9th Cir.
Aug. 31, 2012). The Supreme Court explained in Buckley that "[ e ]ffective
advocacy of both public and private points ofview, particularly controversial
ones, is undeniably enhanced by group association." 424 U.S. at 15 (citations and
internal quotation marks omitted). A political committee's campaign contribution
is political speech, protected by the First Amendment, that fosters a full and robust
exchange ofviews. See generally Citizens United, 130 S. Ct. 876; Buckley, 424
U.S. 1.
By holding political committees to the same contribution limits as
individuals, Montana's contribution limits inhibit the associational rights of
political committees and, consequently, a "full and robust exchange ofviews."
Sanders Co. Republican C. Comm., 2012 WL 4070122 at *1.
This c{)nclusion can be illustrated by a hypothetical that the U.S. Supreme
Court employed in Randall. Suppose that thousands ofvoters in Montana support
the agenda advanced by a particular political committee. Suppose also that the
voters do not know which elections in the State are most critical to advancing that
agenda. Those voters may simply donate their money to the political committee
instead ofa particular candidate and then let the committee determine the elections
32