stating without analysis that contribution limits, if applied to issue advocacy, [] impose limitations on expenditures for issue advocacy — exactly what Buckley forecloses
How later courts described this case
- stating without analysis that contribution limits, if applied to issue advocacy, [] impose limitations on expenditures for issue advocacy — exactly what Buckley forecloses
- rejecting "context" analysis in favor of Buckley's bright-line express advocacy test to avoid excessive "regulatory and judicial assessment of the meaning of political speech."
- refusing to read an implied exemption into the PRA because "[w]here a statute specifically lists the things upon which it operates, there is a presumption that the legislating body intended all omissions"
- rejecting “context” analysis in favor of Buckley’s bright-line express advocacy test, Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 43, 96 S. Ct. 612, 42 L. Ed. 2d 659 (1976), to avoid excessive “regulatory and judicial assessment of the meaning of political speech”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Ireland, J.
(concurring in the dissent) — I concur in Justice Talmadge’s dissent. I would affirm the trial court’s ruling, which inferred an exception within RCW 42.17.640 for protected free speech with respect to issue advocacy, because it is consistent with statutory rules of construction and is not as chilling as the majority’s declaration of unconstitutionality. Normally, this court is extremely reluctant to declare an initiative of the people unconstitutional, whether on its face or as applied. See State v. Thorne, 129 Wn.2d 736, 769-70 , 921 P.2d 514 (1996) (this court upheld constitutionality of “Three Strikes” initiative despite barrage of constitutionally based challenges). This presumption of constitutionality should remain even more steadfast where neither party requests a declaration of unconstitutionality, as was the case here. Br. of Resp’t at 34-35 (“The WSRP [Washington State Republican Party] does not want § 640(14) declared unconstitutional.”).
However, while I would affirm the trial court’s legal analysis, I, too, would remand for trial. Whether the ad in *304 question was “issue advocacy,” and whether both ads, when considered together, resulted in a forbidden “coordinated purpose” that advocated for or against a particular candidate, were questions the jury should have been given an opportunity to decide.