8:01 pm 10/19/23
lie list san francisco case ninth circuit.
to do:
outline of amicus
currently pending is a motion for rehearing before the 9th circuit
1. 303 creative
2. Schuster
2B. 20 cases from 13 states. AZ CA CO DE FL ID IL [IN] LA MA ME MO ND NY
3 Not CU
4. lie list of march 23 opinion - that's what i'm working on now. later:
lie list of lower court opinion. lie list of clc briefs.
6. 9th circuit opinions - aclu v heller rosen v port of portland magic mike v city of seattle that one about discovery and california constitution
1. 303 creative
1A Barnette Tornillo Riley Watchtower Wooley. Hurley, Dale.
not mentioned: talley mcintyre aclf
2. Schuster
2B. 20 cases from 13 states. AZ CA CO DE FL ID IL [IN] LA MA ME MO ND NY
2C california cases
drake bongiorni canon city schuster griset
3 Not CU
3a 6-10 reasons why not CU.
1 dicta. 2 express advocacy loophole case 3 exacting is a contronym 4. subissue to a subissue, not main focus of cases as in mcintyre aclf talley 4. fails to mention talley 5. how the case was affected by bopp's removal 6. disclaimer does not appear in oral argument transcript. 7. corporate speech case. 8. taken out of context.9. there, it was a less restrictive means than a complete ban. here, no such ban is contemplated. 10. not a superprecedent; overruled by reed v town of gilbert, janus nifla 303.
4. lie list of march 23 opinion - that's what i'm working on now. [8:34 pm work continuing here]
later:
lie list of lower court opinion. lie list of clc briefs.
6. 9th circuit opinions - aclu v heller rosen v port of portland magic mike v city of seattle that one about discovery and california constitution
GRABER, Circuit Judge: lie list
1. Under California law, certain political
advertisements run by a committee must name the
committee’s top contributors.
depends on whether a void staTUTE IS A LAW.
2 Plaintiffs have not shown a likelihood of
success on the merits. [they have]
San Francisco’s requirement is
substantially related to the governmental interest in
informing voters of the source of funding for election-related
communications. (ok)
3 The ordinance does not create an
excessive burden on Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights
relative to that interest, and it is sufficiently tailored to the
governmental interest. Accordingly, we affirm.
wrong. it's a severe burden under washingon ,,, chicago strict sc.. norman v reed harold washington.
poor fit with objective since chills speech
4. Advertisements must include the words “[a]d paid for by
[the name of the committee].” Id. § 84502(a)(1). They also
must state “committee major funding from,” followed by the
names of the top contributors to the committee. Id.
§ 84503(a). “Top contributors” are defined as “the persons
from whom the committee paying for an advertisement has
received its three highest cumulative contributions of fifty
thousand dollars ($50,000) or more.” Id. § 84501(c)(1).
Depending on the medium, the advertisement must follow
certain formatting requirements. See id. §§ 84504.1 (video);
84504.2 (print); 84504.4 (radio and telephone); 84504.3
(electronic media); 84504.6 (online platforms).
all of this void of course.
On November 5, 2019, San Francisco voters passed
Proposition F. Referred to by proponents as the “Sunlight
on Dark Money Initiative,” Proposition F changed the
disclaimer requirements for advertisements paid for by
independent political committees, among other provisions.
After the passage of Proposition F, “all committees making
expenditures which support or oppose any candidate for City
elective office or any City measure” must comply with the
City’s new disclaimer requirements, in addition to the state’s
requirements. S.F. Code § 1.161(a).
wonder if they were lied to about it being void and unconstitutional.
is there a city charter?
what's that case about california right to privacy? 8 44 pause here while i go research looking for tyhat case.
Federal courts in California have held that there is a right to privacy that can be raised in response to discovery requests. Johnson by Johnson v. Thompson, 971 F.2d 1487, 1497 (10th Cir.1992); DeMasi v. Weiss, 669 F.2d 114, 119-120 (3rd Cir.1982). The right to privacy in, “California primarily derives from the California Constitution's declaration that individuals have an inalienable right to privacy. Art. I § 1.” Davis v. Leal (E.D. Cal. 1999) 43 F.Supp.2d 1102, 1110–11.
This right to privacy is not the same as a privilege and is therefore, “not an absolute bar to discovery.” Allen v. Woodford (E.D. Cal., Jan. 30, 2007, No. CVF051104OWWLJO) 2007 WL 309485, at *6–7. By contrast, courts must balance the need for information against the claimed right to privacy. Ragge v. MCA/Universal Studios (C.D.Ca.1995) 165 F.R.D. 601, 604 (right of privacy may be invaded for litigation purposes). In other words, the right to privacy is not absolute and the courts will engage in a balancing test weighing the right to privacy against the right to reasonable discovery.
here there is no counterbalancing due process right to discovery. any "right to know" created by the void initiative is subordinate to the state constitution and the first amendment
privileges and immunities clause as well as due process, equal protection, incorporation doctrine.
cal const:
free speech
privacy
elections?
8:52 pm . 10/19/23 might stop for the night.
All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their protection, security, and benefit, and they have the right to alter or reform it when the public good may require. art 2 section 1. cal const.
Voting shall be secret. art 2 section 7. suggests a public policy.
art 1 section 2 (a) Every person may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of this right. A law may not restrain or abridge liberty of speech or press.
(b) A publisher, editor, reporter, or other person connected with or employed upon a newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication, or by a press association or wire service, or any person who has been so connected or employed, shall not be adjudged in contempt by a judicial, legislative, or administrative body, or any other body having the power to issue subpoenas, for refusing to disclose the source of any information procured while so connected or employed for publication in a newspaper, magazine or other periodical publication, or for refusing to disclose any unpublished information obtained or prepared in gathering, receiving or processing of information for communication to the public.
press shield law. suggests a policy of respecting anonymity
(a) The people have the right to instruct their representatives, petition government for redress of grievances, and assemble freely to consult for the common good.
(b) (1) The people have the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business, and, therefore, the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies shall be open to public scrutiny.
(2) A statute, court rule, or other authority, including those in effect on the effective date of this subdivision, shall be broadly construed if it furthers the people’s right of access, and narrowly construed if it limits the right of access. A statute, court rule, or other authority adopted after the effective date of this subdivision that limits the right of access shall be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest.
(3) Nothing in this subdivision supersedes or modifies the right of privacy guaranteed by Section 1 or affects the construction of any statute, court rule, or other authority to the extent that it protects that right to privacy, including any statutory procedures governing discovery or disclosure of information concerning the official performance or professional qualifications of a peace officer.
(4) Nothing in this subdivision supersedes or modifies any provision of this Constitution, including the guarantees that a person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or denied equal protection of the laws, as provided in Section 7.
expresses policy in support of privacy clause.
(a) A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws; art 1 section 7.
the san francisco disclaimer rule violates both due process and equal protection.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable seizures and searches may not be violated;
The right of the people to be secure in their ... papers, and effects against unreasonable seizures and searches may not be violated. the imposition of a disclaimer is an unreasonable seizure.
Cruel or unusual punishment may not be inflicted or excessive fines imposed.
here, any fine is excessive. in talley, the court found a $10 fine excessive. in mcintyre, the court found a $100 fine excessive. ok 9 21 stopped; too tired for reasonable legal fee.
Under the new ordinance, ads run by primarily formed
independent expenditure and ballot measure committees
must include a disclaimer listing their top three contributors
of $5,000 or more. Id. § 1.161(a)(1). Additionally, “[i]f any
of the top three major contributors is a committee, the
disclaimer must also disclose both the name of and the dollar
amount contributed by each of the top two major
contributors of $5,000 or more to that committee.” Id. The
ad also must inform voters that “[f]inancial disclosures are
NO ON E V. DAVID CHIU 9
available at sfethics.org” or, if an audio ad, provide a
substantially similar statement that specifies the website.
S.F. Code § 1.161(a)(2).
Printed disclaimers that id
here, there is an attempt to commandeer the content of the ad with another ad, this one for sfethics.org.
need one point out that this is unethical?
Printed disclaimers that identify a “major contributor or
secondary major contributor” must list the dollar amount of
relevant contributions made by each named contributor. S.F.
Code § 1.161(a)(1); S.F. Ethics Comm’n Reg. (“S.F. Reg.”)
1.161-3(a)(4). Print ads must include the disclaimers in text
that is “at least 14-point, bold font.” S.F. Code
§ 1.161(a)(3). Audio and video advertisements must begin
by speaking the required disclaimers of major contributors
and secondary major contributors, but need not disclose the
dollar amounts of those donors’ contributions. Id.
§§ 1.161(a)(5); 1.162(a)(3).
Printed disclaimers that identify a “major contributor or
secondary major contributor” must list the dollar amount of
relevant contributions made by each named contributor. S.F.
Code § 1.161(a)(1); S.F. Ethics Comm’n Reg. (“S.F. Reg.”)
1.161-3(a)(4).
this clearly is a matter that at least some donors would prefer to keep private.
Print ads must include the disclaimers in text
that is “at least 14-point, bold font.” S.F. Code
§ 1.161(a)(3).
the constitution does not allow for this degree of micromanagement.
Audio and video advertisements must begin
by speaking the required disclaimers of major contributors
and secondary major contributors, but need not disclose the
dollar amounts of those donors’ contributions. Id.
§§ 1.161(a)(5); 1.162(a)(3).
the constitution does not allow for this degree of micromanagement. 9:34. pm
In addition, video ads must
display a text banner that contains similar information to that
required in print ads. Cal. Gov’t Code § 84504.1; S.F. Code
§ 1.161(a)(1).
the constitution does not allow for this degree of micromanagement
Violations of the City’s campaign finance laws are
punishable by civil, criminal, and administrative penalties.
S.F. Code § 1.170.
talley and mcintyre only involved small civil fines. criminal penalties are far more chilling to the speech of a reasonable person.
A committee’s treasurer may be held
personally liable for violations by the committee. Id.
§ 1.170(g). Any individual who suspects a possible
violation may file a complaint with the Ethics Commission,
City Attorney, or District Attorney.
this would discourage and chill any reasonable person from becoming treasurer. this in turn unduly burdens the rights of association and petition. implicating both constitutions.
vote for smith v vote for smith, Ad paid for by San Franciscans Supporting
Prop. B 2022. Committee major funding from:
1. Concerned Parents Supporting the Recall of
Collins, Lopez and Moliga ($5,000) – contributors
include Neighbors for a Better San Francisco
Advocacy Committee ($468,800), Arthur Rock
($350,000).
2. BOMA SF Ballot Issues PAC ($5,000).
3. Edwin M. Lee Asian Pacific Democratic Club
PAC sponsored by Neighbors for a Better San
Francisco Advocacy ($5,000) – contributors include
Neighbors for a Better San Francisco Advocacy
Committee ($100,000), David Chiu for Assembly
2022 ($10,600).
Financial disclosures are available at
sfethics.org.
On May 11, 2022, Plaintiffs filed this action. Plaintiffs
allege that the secondary-contributor disclaimer requirement
violates the First Amendment, both on its face and as applied
against Plaintiffs. In their prayer for relief, Plaintiffs request
a declaration that the requirement violates the First
Amendment, on its face and as applied to Plaintiffs; an
injunction barring enforcement of the secondary-contributor
requirement, in general and against Plaintiffs specifically;
and nominal damages.
To obtain a preliminary injunction, a plaintiff must
establish “that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he
is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of
preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his
favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter
v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008).
The district court applied “exacting scrutiny,” which
“requires a ‘substantial relation’ between the disclosure
requirement and a ‘sufficiently important’ governmental
interest.” Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310, 366–67
(2010) (quoting Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 64 (1976) (per
curiam)). On de novo review, Fyock, 779 F.3d at 995, we
hold that exacting scrutiny is the correct legal standard.
wrong for at least 3 reasons:
1 wrong definition of exacting where mcintyre governs
thus was exactly what the supreem court of ohio got wrong in mcintyre, leading the court to grant cert.
2 violates reed v town of gilbert, 303,
3 valeo does not contain word disclaimer.
The court's holding violates binding federal case law, and is questionable as a matter of state law.
4 fails important government interest test because state constitution.
Regardless of the beliefs sought to be advanced by
association, “compelled disclosure requirements are
reviewed under exacting scrutiny.” Ams. for Prosperity
Found. v. Bonta, 141 S. Ct. 2373, 2383 (2021) (
makes the disclaimers are not disclosures mistake.
In the electoral
context, both the Supreme Court and our court have
consistently applied exacting scrutiny to compelled
disclosure requirements and on-advertisement disclaimer
requirements. See Citizens United, 558 U.S. at 366–67
(holding that disclaimer and disclosure requirements are
subject to exacting scrutiny);
kind of a lie, at least its tricky. lie #2 here is CU did not hold this; that part of CU was dicta. 10"04 pm.
Brumsickle, 624 F.3d at 1005 (applying exacting
scrutiny to Washington law that required disclaimers on
political advertising and disclosure of certain contributions
and expenditures); < dunno, will need to review.
See Citizens United, 558 U.S. at 366–67
(holding that disclaimer and disclosure requirements are
subject to exacting scrutiny); John Doe No. 1 v. Reed, 561
U.S. 186, 196 (2010) (applying exacting scrutiny to
disclosure requirement); Buckley, 424 U.S. at 64 (requiring
that compelled disclosure requirements survive exacting
scrutiny); Davis v. FEC, 554 U.S. 724, 744 (2008)
(evaluating whether disclosure requirements satisfy exacting
scrutiny); Brumsickle, 624 F.3d at 1005 (applying exacting
scrutiny to Washington law that required disclaimers on
political advertising and disclosure of certain contributions
and expenditures); see also Family PAC v. McKenna, 685
F.3d 800, 805–06 (9th Cir. 2012) (“Disclosure requirements
are subject to exacting scrutiny.”).5
error > those are all disclosure cases, not disclaimer cases, except brumsickle. which appears erroneous for exactly that reason.[but i need to review that case.]
The City and County of San Francisco (“City”) has a paramount interest in protecting the integrity of its government institutions. To further this interest, individuals should be encouraged to report possible violations of laws, regulations, and rules governing the conduct of City officers and employees, City contrctors, and employees of City contractors.
This Chapter 1 fulfills the Charter’s requirements for two City programs relating to whistleblowers, as required by Charter Appendix Section
F1.107. First, as required by the Charter, the Office of the Controller has authority to receive and investigate whistleblower complaints concerning deficiencies in the quality and delivery of City government services, wasteful and inefficient City government practices, misuse of City funds, and improper activities by City officers, employees, and contractors.
Second, as required by the Charter, this ordinance protects the confidentiality of whistleblowers, and protects City officers and employees from retaliation for filing whistleblower complaints or providing assistance with the investigation of such complaints. As set forth in this
Chapter 1, the Ethics Commission has primary responsibility for ensuring such protections.
states a policy in favor of protecting whistleblowers from doxxing.
did not find much in the city charter. 10:29 pm.
In addition to disclosures for independent expenditures, the Disclosure Law sets forth requirements for "political advertising," defined as "any advertising displays, newspaper ads, billboards, signs, brochures, articles, tabloids, flyers, letters, radio or television presentations, or other means of mass communication, used for the purpose of appealing, directly or indirectly, for votes or for financial or other support or opposition in any election campaign." Id. § 42.17.020(38). An advertisement must identify its sponsor: written political advertising' must include the sponsor's name and address; radio and television ads must state the sponsor's name; and advertising undertaken as an independent expenditure must state that the advertisement was not approved by any candidate. See id. § 42.17.510(1)-(4).
this is brumsickle.
clearly erroneous analysis, gets disclaimers mixed
up with disclosure
10:44 pm. dustbin of history. wish i could look up wash cases.
