California Pro Life Council v. Randolph
In August 2000, California Pro-Life Council (CPLC) filed a constitutional challenge to California’s reporting and disclosure requirements applicable to groups advocating for or against state ballot measures. The district court dismissed the CPLC’s claims and upheld the challenged state law provisions, and CPLC appealed the decision. In November 2007, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the lower court in part, holding that “mixed purpose” organizations that only occasionally support or oppose ballot measures do not have to register as political committees and comply with statutory record-keeping and reporting requirements. However, the court found that such organizations could be required to report contributions exceeding $1,000 which were used for ballot measure advocacy.