Campaign Integrity Watchdog, Petitioner v. Alliance for a Safe and Independent Woodmen Hills; and Colorado…

Summary

The court held that Alliance's payments for legal services were not reportable expenditures or obligations because they were not for express advocacy, but were reportable contributions because they were payments to third parties for Alliance's benefit. It further held that applying the contribution-reporting requirement to Alliance's post-election legal expenses did not violate the First Amendment because Alliance's major purpose was influencing elections and disclosure served important governmental interests. The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.