disclaimer notes 2/20/2016
this post is based on 1 hr of westlaw research at mizzou law school library 12-1pm 2/18/16.

rnc v fec as a disclaimer case? didn't see it as an issue
survival ed v fec - 1995, but before mcintyre?
ky rtl v terry
gable v patton http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-6th-circuit/1396718.html
Case citation: Gable v. Patton, 142 F.3d 940 (6th Cir. 1998)

acey v tennessee Tennessee V. ACEY, 633 S.W.2d 306 (Tenn. 1982) 
n c v peterslie

Wilkinson v. Jones, 876 F. Supp. 916 (W.D. Ky. 1995) january 1995, guessed wrong about how mcintyre would come out.

Morefield v. Moore, 540 S.W.2d 873 (Ky. 1976)

See, e.g., United States v. Scott, 195 F. Supp. 440, 443 (D.N.D. 1961); Canon v. Justice Ct., 61 Cal.2d 446, 452, 458-59, 393 P.2d 428, 431, 416, 39 Cal.Rptr. 228, 231, 235 (1964); State v. Freeman, 143 Kan. 315, 319, 55 P.2d 362, 365 (1936).
Riley v. Federation of the Blind, 487 U.S. 781 
West Virginians for Life v Ireland (W.D.WV 2009)
West Virginians for Life, Inc. v. Smith, 919 F. Supp. 954 (S.D. W. Va. 1996), 

kvue v moore
seymour v election enforcement
Federal Election Commission v. Public Citizen, Inc, 268 F.3d 1283 (11th Cir. 2001)

ky freedom forum v fec http://www.fec.gov/law/litigation_CCA_FEC_D.shtml

Andrew Nathan Worley v. Florida Secretary of State, 12-14074 (11th Cir. 2013), cert denied on other grounds.

geutzloe case
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2011-05-11/news/os-doug-guetzloe-jailed-orange-county20110511_1_fred-o-neal-doug-guetzloe-orange-county-jail

delaware county indiana disclaimer case
ohio rtl v ohio elections commission 2008/2010
green mountain futures v vermont
republican governerns assocation v vermont, no reported case?
yes to life v webster 1999
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2512 758/minnesota-citizens-concerned-for-life-v-kelley/?q=cites%3A737421&page=2
I conclude that under United States Supreme Court precedent, the required disclosure of the PAC's identity in political messages concerning a noncandidate ballot measure violates the First Amendment. (but see nom v mckee, same judge, case about corporations.)

mn citizens for life v kelly 2003 Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life v.Kelley, 291 F. Supp. 2d 1052 (D. Minnesota 2003)
Representative Milbert indicated an unwillingness to broaden the statute unless the legislature was "under a direct threat by a court to do it." (Caliguri Aff. Ex. I.) That day has come. The Court finds that Minn.Stat. § 211B.04 is unconstitutional under the First Amendment. This section does not apply to an individual who acts independently of any candidate, committee, political committee, or political fund and spends only from the individual's own resources a sum that is less than $300 in the aggregate to produce or distribute campaign material that is distributed at least 14 days before the election to which the material relates.
Following the Supreme Court's holding in McIntyre, the Office of the Minnesota Attorney General-which is currently defending the legislation-released an opinion stating that Minn.Stat. § 211B.04 was "clearly unconstitutional." Op. At. Gen., 82t, Aug. 27, 1997.

 of anonymous political speech. See, e. g., State v. Doe, 61 S. W. 3d 99 (Tex. Ct. App. 2001); Washington Initiatives Now v. Ripple, 213 F. 3d 1132 (9th Cir. 2000); Church of the American Knights of the Ku Klux Klan v. City of Erie, 99 F. Supp. 2d 583 (W. D. Pa. 2000); State v. Alaska Civil Liberties Union, 978 P. 2d 597 (Alaska 1999); Yes for Life PAC v. Webster, 74 F. Supp. 2d 37 (D. Me. 1999) and Volle v. Webster, 69 F. Supp. 2d 171 (D. Me. 1999); American KKK v. City of Goshen, 50 F. Supp. 2d 835 (N. D. Ind. 1999); Arkansas Right to Life State PAC v. Butler, 29 F. Supp. 2d 540 (W. D. Ark. 1998); Stewart v. Taylor, 953 F. Supp. 1047 (S. D. Ind. 1997); West Virginians for Life v. Smith, 960 F. Supp. 1036 (S. D. W. Va. 1996); and Virginia Society for Human Life v. Caldwell, 906 F. Supp. 1071 (W

http://www.ag.state.mi.us/opinion/datafiles/1990s/op06895.htm
michigan ag opinion. says disclaimer statute unconstitutional.

federal: talley,

mcintyre,
Whatever the motivation may be, at least in the field of literary endeavor, the interest in having anonymous works enter the marketplace of ideas unquestionably outweighs any public interest in requiring disclosure as a condition of entry. 5 Accordingly, an author's decision to remain anonymous, like other decisions concerning omissions or additions to the content of a publication, is an aspect of the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment. 

`there is practically universal agreement that a major purpose of that Amendment was to protect the free discussion of governmental affairs, . . . of course includ[ing] discussions of candidates . . 

. This no more than reflects our `profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open,' New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270 (1964). In a republic where the people are sovereign, the ability of the citizenry to make informed choices among candidates for office is essential, for the identities of those who [ McINTYRE v. OHIO ELECTIONS COMM'N, ___ U.S. ___ (1995) , 13]   are elected will inevitably shape the course that we follow as a nation. As the Court observed in Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy, 401 U.S. 265, 272 (1971), `it can hardly be doubted that the constitutional guarantee has its fullest and most urgent application precisely to the conduct of campaigns for political office.'" Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 14 -15 (1976).

Of course, core political speech need not center on a candidate for office. The principles enunciated in Buckley extend equally to issue-based elections such as the school-tax referendum that Mrs. McIntyre sought to influence through her handbills. See First Nat. Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765, 776 -777 (1978) (speech on income-tax referendum "is at the heart of the First Amendment's protection"). Indeed, the speech in which Mrs. McIntyre engaged - handing out leaflets in the advocacy of a politically controversial viewpoint - is the essence of First Amendment expression. See International Society for Krishna Consciousness v. Lee, 505 U.S. ___ (1992); Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U.S. 444 (1938). That this advocacy occurred in the heat of a controversial referendum vote only strengthens the protection afforded to Ms. McIntyre's expression: urgent, important, and effective speech can be no less protected than impotent speech, lest the right to speak be relegated to those instances when it is least needed. See Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1, 4 (1949). No form of speech is entitled to greater constitutional protection than Mrs. McIntyre's.

When a law burdens core political speech, we apply "exacting scrutiny," and we uphold the restriction only if it is narrowly tailored to serve an overriding state interest

- See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/514/334.html#sthash.WWTX7SE3.dpuf

We think the action of the local authorities in compelling the flag salute and pledge transcends constitutional limitations on their power and invades the sphere of intellect and spirit which it is the purpose of the First Amendment to our Constitution to reserve from all official control. Barnette.v W.Va. Board. 
Mandating speech that a speaker would not otherwise make necessarily alters the content of the speech. We therefore consider the Act as a content-based regulation of speech. Riley v Nat'l Fed. of the Blind. 
- See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/487/781.html#sthash.YPeb44uk.dpuf 6:30 pm 2/22/16 begin billing.
We begin with the proposition that the right of freedom of thought protected by the First Amendment against state action includes both the right to speak freely and the right to refrain from speaking at all.The right to speak and the right to refrain from speaking are complementary components of the broader concept of "individual freedom of mind. Wooley v Maynard.

When a State's election law directly regulates core political speech, we have always subjected the challenged restriction to strict scrutiny and required that the legislation be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest. J. Thomas, Concurring, Buckley v ACLF (1999),

all along the watchtower v stratton.

There are no doubt other patriotic citizens, who have such firm convictions about their constitutional right to engage in uninhibited debate in the context of door-to-door advocacy, that they would prefer silence to speech licensed by a petty official. Watchtower v Statton (2005)

It seems to me  what Justice Stevens here is saying for the court applies to voter ID. A patriotic American voter would be offended at being asked for a voting license, and would stay home in protest, rather than participate in such an indignity. And that harms us all.  

  The rhetoric used in the World War II-era opinions that repeatedly saved petitioners' coreligionists from petty prosecutions reflected the Court's evaluation of the First Amendment freedoms that are implicated in this case. The value judgment that then motivated a united democratic people fighting to defend those very freedoms from totalitarian attack is unchanged. It motivates our decision today. Watchtower v Stratton (2005)

aclf,

watchtower,

citizens united, The Government may regulate corporate political speech through disclaimer and disclosure 

requirements, but it may not suppress that speech altogether - Under this test, Hillary is 



equivalent to express advocacy. The movie, in essence, is a 


feature-length negative 

advertisement that urges viewers to vote against Senator 

Clinton for President. - See more 

at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/08-

205.html#sthash.RiTF1F8o.dpuf


First Amendment standards, however, "must give the benefit 

of any doubt to protecting rather than stifling 

speech." WRTL, 551 U. S., at 469 (opinion of ROBERTS,


 C. J.) (citing New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254, 

269-270 (1964)).




       - 
205.html#sthash.RiTF1F8o.dpuf

wrtl,

federation of the blind

tornillo

aid v open society

wooley v maynard.

naacp v alabama. bates v little rock.

indiana: majors v abell,

stewart v taylor, odgen v marendt mulholland v board

circuit cases like _ v FEC, davidson (10th),

Wilson v Stocker, 819 F.2d 943, 950 (10th Cir. 1987),

ShrinkMo v. Maupin, 892 F. Supp. 1246 (E.D. Mo. 1995), aff'd on other grounds, 71

F.3d 1422 (8th Cir. 1995), Citizens for Responsible Gov't State PAC v. Davidson, 236

F.3d 1174, (10th Cir. 2000), Vt. Right to Life Comm., Inc. v. Sorrell, 221 F.3d 376, 392

(2d Cir. 2000), ACLU v Heller 378 F3d 979 (9th cir. 2004), Mulholland v Marion

County Election Board, (7th Cir. 3/202014).

notes for an outline of a memo

,, moving this to a file, in case the wifi doesn't work right tonight.

well the short version, which is all i have so far, is that i will take each of the cases on disclaimers,and find one good quote from each,and string them together into a file.

so
federal: talley, mcintyre, barnette, aclf, watchtower, citizens united, wrtl, federation of the blind tornillo aid v open society wooley v maynard. naacp v alabama. bates v little rock.

indiana: majors v abell, stewart v taylor, odgen v marendt mulholland v board
circuit cases like _ v FEC, davidson (10th),
Wilson v Stocker, 819 F.2d 943, 950 (10th Cir. 1987),
ShrinkMo v. Maupin, 892 F. Supp. 1246 (E.D. Mo. 1995), aff'd on other grounds, 71
F.3d 1422 (8th Cir. 1995), Citizens for Responsible Gov't State PAC v. Davidson, 236
F.3d 1174, (10th Cir. 2000), Vt. Right to Life Comm., Inc. v. Sorrell, 221 F.3d 376, 392
(2d Cir. 2000), ACLU v Heller 378 F3d 979 (9th cir. 2004), Mulholland v Marion
County Election Board, (7th Cir. 3/202014).

1961 United States v. Scott (D.N.D.) 195 F. Supp. 440 (1961) 1962 People v. Bongiorni, 205 Cal. App. 2d Supp. 856 (Sup. Ct. 1962) 1964 Canon v. Justice Court for Lake Valley, 61 Cal.2d 446, 39 Cal.Rptr. 228, 393 P.2d 428 (1964), 1968 Idaho v. Barney, 448 P.2d 195 (1968), 1969 Zwickler v Koota, 389 U.S. 241 (1967), 290 F.Supp. 244, mooted 394 U.S. 103 (1969) sub nom Golden v Zwickler 1973 Opinion of the Justices, 306 A.2d 18 (Maine 1973) 1973 United States v. Insco, 365 F. Supp. 1308 (M.D. Fla. 1973) 1974 In re Opinion of the Justices, 324 A.2d 211 (Del. 1974) 1974 New York v. Duryea, 351 NYS2d 978 (1974) 1974 Printing Industries of the Gulf Coast v. Hill, 382 F.Supp. 8011 (S.D.Tx 1974), 42 L.Ed.26 33 dismissed as moot. http://openjurist.org/422/us/937/hill-v-printingindustries-of-gulf-coast 1975 Dennis v. Massachusetts, 329 N.E.2d 706 (Mass. 1975), http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/368/368mass92.html 1976 State of Louisiana v. Fulton, 3.37 So.2d 866 (La. 1976) 1978 State v. North Dakota Educ. Ass'n, 262 N.W.2d 731 (N.D. 1978), http://www.ndcourts.com/court/opinions/612.htm 1980 Schuster v. Imperial County Mun. Ct., 167 Cal. Rptr. 447 (Cal. Ct. App. 1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1042 45. http://ca.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.%5CCA %5CCA2%5C1980%5C19800828_0040409.CA.htm/qx 1987 Illinois v. White, 506 NE2d 1284 (Ill. 1987)
http://il.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.%5CIL%5CIL2%5Carchp %5C1987%5C19870220_0000193.IL.htm/qx 1987 Wilson v. Stocker, 819 F.2d 943, 950 (10th Cir. 1987); http://www.ndcourts.com/court/opinions/612.htm 1995 Louisiana. v. Moses, 655 So. 2d 779 (La. Ct. App. 1995) 1995 McIntyre v. Ohio, 514 U.S. 334 (1995) http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93986.ZO.html 1995 ShrinkMo v. Maupin, 892 F. Supp. 1246 (E.D. Mo. 1995), aff'd, 71 F.3d 1422 (8th Cir. 1995), http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/95/12/952857P.pdf 1996 W. Va. for Life, Inc. v. Smith, 960 F. Supp. 1036, 1042 (S.D. W. Va. 1996) 1997 Stewart v Taylor, 953 F. Supp. 1047 (S.D. Ind. 1997), https://casetext.com/case/stewart-v-taylor 1997 ACLU of Georgia v. Miller, (977 F.Supp. 1228 (N.D.Ga 1997) http://www2.bc.edu/~herbeck/cyberlaw.acluvmiller.html 1997 ALA v. Pataki, 969 F.Supp 160 (1997) http://www.loundy.com/CASES/ALA_v_Pataki.html 1998 Doe v. Mortham, 708 So.2d 929 (Fla.1998) 1998 Washington ex rel Public Disclosure v. 119 Vote No!, 957 P.2d 691 (1998) 1999 Cyberspace v. Engler, 55 F.Supp.2d 737 (E.D. Mich 1999) http://www.cyberspace.org/cyberspace/lawsuit/ 1999 Griset v. Fair Political Practices Commission, 25 Cal.4th 688, 107 Cal.Rptr.2d 149; 23 P.3d 43 2001, reversed on other grounds,2004. 2000 Anonymous v. Delaware, 2000 Del. Ch. Lexis 84 (2000), 2000 Citizens for Responsible Gov't State PAC v. Davidson, 236 F.3d 1174, 2000 (10th Cir. 2000); 2000 N.C. Right to Life, Inc. v. Leake, 108 F. Supp. 2d 498, 510 (E.D. N.C. 2000) 2000 Vt. Right to Life Comm., Inc. v. Sorrell, 221 F.3d 376, 392 (2d Cir. 2000); 2000 Doe v. 2theMart, 140 F.Supp.2d 1088,http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/stjohns/2themart.html 2001 Melvin v Doe, 2001 Pa. Super. 33044 P.3d 1044 (2002) 2002 Tattered Cover v Thornton, 44 P.3d 1044 (Co. 2002) 2002 Ogden v Marendt 264 F.Supp.2d 785 (S.D. Ind. 2003) 2003 Doe v. Texas, 2003 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 88 (Tex. Crim. App. May 14, 2003). 2004 ACLU v Heller 378 F3d 979 (9th     cir. 2004) http://openjurist.org/378/f3d/979/american-civil-liberties-union-of-nevada-v-heller, 2008 The Broward Coalition v. Browning (N.D. Fla. 2008) 2009 Michael James Berger, aka Magic Mike v. City of Seattle (9th Cir. 2009) Freedom’s Heritage v. FEC, FEC v. Freedom's Heritage Forum, No. 3:98CV-549-S (W.D. Ky September 29, 1999). FEC v. Freedom's Heritage, Forum,March 28, 2002, August 14, 2003 2010 Sampson v. Buescher, 625 F.3d 1247, (10th Cir. 2010)
2012 Hatchett v Barland, (E.D.Wi) , on appeal to 7th Cir. 2014 Mulholland v Marion County Election Board (7th Cir. 3/20/2014),

all those cases from the chart.

ACLU v. Heller, 378 F3d 979 (9th cir. 2004),                                            10, 16              
Agency for International Development v Alliance for Open Society International, Inc, _ U.S. _ (6/20/2013).                                                                                  8, 12, 14
Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1135 (9th Cir. 2011). 8
Anonymous v Delaware, 2000 Del. Ch. Lexis 84 (2000).                                  6
Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652 (1990)                    14
Bates v Little Rock 361 U.S. 516 (1960)                                                           11
Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation, Inc.,  525 U.S. 182, 199-200,  119 S.Ct. 636,  142 L.Ed.2d 599  (1999) (“ACLF”),                                            8, 11
Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976)                                                              11, 12
Citizens for Responsible Gov't PAC v. Davidson, 236 F.3d 1174, (10th Cir. 2000),16 Vt. Right to Life Comm., Inc. v. Sorrell, 221 F.3d 376, 392 (2d Cir. 2000),       16 Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010).                                   7, 8, 9, 13,14,15,
Dennis v. Massachusetts, 329 N.E.2d 706 (Mass. 1975),                                  18 Elrod v Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (1976)                                                                  19
Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic Central Comm., 489 U. S. 214, 223 (1989) (quoting Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy, 401 U. S. 265, 272 (1971))                    10
Ex Parte Harrison, 110 S.W. 709 (Mo 1908)                                                    18
Free Enterprise Club PAC v. Bennett, 564 U.S. _, 131 S.Ct. 2806 (2011)         9 Green Mountain Future, v. Vermont 2012-072 (Vt.2013)                                13 Idaho v. Barney, 448 P.2d 195 (1968)                                                              18
Illinois v. White, 506 NE2d 1284 (Ill. 1987)                                                      18 In re Opinion of the Justices, 324 A.2d 211 (Del. 1974)                                    18 Justice for All v Faulkner, 410 F.3d 760 (2005)                                               6, 8
Louisiana. v. Moses, 655 So. 2d 779 (La. Ct. App. 1995)                                  19 Majors. Majors v Abell, 317 F.3d 719 (7th Cir. 2003), 792 NE2d 18 (Ind. 2003), 361 F.2d 349 (7th Cir 2004.)                                                                            6, 9, 10
McConnell v FEC, 540 U.S. 93 (2003)                                                    9, 10,14
McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n.,  514 U.S. 334,  115 S.Ct. 1511,  131 L.Ed.2d 426(1995);                                                                 6, 8, 10, 11, 12,14,15, 18, 19 Mulholland v Marion County Election Board (7th Cir 2014),                     10, 16
NAACP v Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449 (1958)                                11
Nat’l Org. for Marriage v. McKee I, 649 F.3d 34, (1st Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 1635 (2012),  Nat’l Org. for Marriage, Inc. v. McKee II, 669 F.3d 34, (1st Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 163 (2012)                                                                      13
New York v. Duryea, 351 NYS2d 978 (1974)                                                       18 Opinion of the Justices, 306 A.2d 18 (Maine 1973)                                             18
Reed v Town of Gilbert, 576 U.S. __ (2015)                                                         12
Riley v Nat’l.Fed’n of the Blind, 487 U.S 781 (1988)                                        8, 12
Salerno, U.S v., 481 U.S. 739 (1987)
Schuster v. Imperial County Mun. Ct., 167 Cal. Rptr. 447 (Cal. Ct. App.1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1042 45.                                                                                       19 ShrinkMo v. Maupin, 892 F. Supp. 1246 (E.D. Mo. 1995), aff'd on other grounds, 71 F.3d 1422 (8th Cir. 1995),                                                                                   15
State of Louisiana v. Fulton, 3.37 So.2d 866 (La. 1976)                                      18 State v. North Dakota Educ. Ass'n, 262 N.W.2d 731 (N.D. 1978)                   18-19 Stewart v Taylor, 953 F. Supp. 1047 (1997)                                                           6
Swaffer v Cane, 610 F.Supp.2d 962 (2009)                                                          10
Talley v. California,  362 U.S. 60, 64,  80 S.Ct. 536,  4 L.Ed.2d 559  (1960).
                                                                                                     6, 8, 11, 12, 14, 15,
Tattered Cover v Thornton, 44 P.3d 1044 (Co. 2002)                                           19
Tornillo v. Miami Herald, 418 U.S. 241 (1974)                                            8, 12, 15
Van Hollen v FEC, (D.C. Cir. 1/21/2016), slip op at 24, 27.                                    9
Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc’y of New York City v. Vill. of Stratton, 536 U.S. 150, (2002)                                                                                                                       8 West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624 (1943)                          8, 12
Wilson v Stocker, 819 F.2d 943, 950 (10th Cir. 1987),                                           16 Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U. S. 705, 717 (1977)                                                  8, 12
WRTL I, 551 U. S. 449 (2006), at 464. and II, 551 U.S. 449 (2007)            9, 10, 15