Amicus Brief: Alabama Democratic Conference, et al. v. Strange

Despite regulating activity at the core of the First Amendment’s protections, campaign finance restrictions are governed by a sprawling, complex system of state and federal statutory and administrative regulations, augmented by a series of decisions issued by this Court. For most organizations, that law is unnavigable without the assistance of a small, specialized bar of attorneys steeped in the arcane rules that have come to govern political participation.

This is a troubling enough development, and one that this Court has previously decried. Citizens United v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 558 U.S. 310, 324 (2010). Nevertheless, as the decision below shows, things can always get worse. In grossly misapplying this Court’s existing precedents, and creating new circuit splits that further destabilize this area of the law, the decision below ensures that even campaign finance experts will find it nearly impossible to provide reliable legal advice to political participants, litigants, and legislatures.

This case presents a clean, as-applied opportunity to clarify an important question of First Amendment law and, not incidentally, to resolve the confusion that now surrounds this area of legal practice. The writ of certiorari ought to issue.

Read Full Brief