cases listed in 9th cir no on e.
Alaska Right to Life Comm. v. Miles, 441 F.3d 773, 793 (9th Cir.

2006);

Bellotti, 435 U.S. at 791–92

Getman, 328 F.3

Family PAC, 685

F.3d at 806.

lie list #2


California law also requires specific disclaimers in political advertisements. Id. §§ 84501–84511.

Brumsickle

Citizens United, 558 U.S. at 371.

Buckley

, 424 U.S. at 66 ” Family PAC, 685 F.3d at 806


See Wash. State Grange v. Wash. State Republican Party, 552 U.S. 442, 454–55 (2008)See Wash. State Grange v. Wash. State Republican Party, 552 U.S. 442, 454–55 (2008)


Buckley, 424 U.S. at 66
Buckley, 424 U.S. at 66


Plaintiffs do not challenge California’s law that requires an on-advertise
Yes on Prop B, 440 F. Supp. 3d at 1056–57.
ment disclaimer listing the top three donors to a committee

John Doe No. 1, 561 U.S. at 196 (quoting Davis, 554 U.S. at 744).
Yes on Prop B, 440 F. Supp. 3d at 1056–57.


Nat’l Inst. of Family & Life Advocs. v. Becerra (NIFLA), 138 S. Ct. 2361, 2372, 2377 (2018)).


That test differs from exacting scrutiny review, which applies to disclaimer and disclosure requirements in the electoral context.
Citizens United, 558 U.S. at 366–67; see id., 558 U.S. at 422 (“The election context is distinctive in many ways[.]” (Stevens, J., concurring)); Gaspee Project, 13 F.4th at 95 (“The election-related context implicated here is alone sufficient to distinguish NIFLA”).


[here the court relies on mcintyre's election exception to the rule in talley. but wait, there was none. ]
ok can i bring a california civil rights claim and seek to intervene?








1

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10





see Ams. for Prosperity Found., 141 S. Ct. at 2388–89

Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305, 312 (1982)

McConnell, 540 U.S. at 197 (quoting McConnell v. FEC, 251 F. Supp. 2d 176, 237

NO ON E V.DAVID CHIU29 (D.D.C. 2003)), overruled in part on other grounds byCitizens United, 558 U.S. at 365–66.



McCutcheon v. FEC, 572 U.S. 185, 218 (2014) (plurality opinion)

Majors v. Abell, 361 F.3d 349, 353 (7th Cir. 2004) (reasoning that because fewer people are likely to see reports to government agencies than notice in the ad itself, “reporting [is] a less effective method of conveying information”);

insight: oh boy! no on e relies in part on majors. i lost majors. so i have a reason to be an amicus. use stewart v taylor to show majors is unreliable and a thin reed, quote from dubitante. insight 

See Indep. Inst. v. Williams, 812 F.3d 787, 797 (10th Cir. 2016)

Michael Kang, Campaign Disclosure in Direct Democracy, 97 Minn. L. Rev. 1700, 1718 (2013)

 











Indep. Inst. v. FEC, 216 F. Supp. 3d 176, 190–92 (D.D.C. 2016)

Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305, 312 (1982)