April 16, 2010 

TO: Assembly Representatives 

FROM: 
Susan Armacost, Legislative Director 
Wisconsin Right to Life 

RE: Wisconsin Right to Life opposes SB 540 

The State Senate has passed SB 540, legislation that purportedly brings Wisconsin 
into conformity with the recent U.S. Supreme Court Citizens United decision. 

After consultation with our national legal experts, it is clear that SB 540 should be 
rejected for the following reasons: 

1. Section 1 of SB 540 amends the definition of "political purposes" to include 
communications referring to a candidate, an office to be filled, or a political party 
within 60 days of an election. This, along with Sections 3 & 4, are an attempt to 
include electioneering communication within the ambit of the PAC-style reports 
already required by WSA §§ 11.05 & 11.06. Citizens United, No. 08-205, 2010 WL 
183856, at *9 & *16 (U.S. Jan. 21, 2010), says that PAC-style reporting is the 
functional equivalent to a prior restraint on speech. McConnell upheld the definition 
of electioneering communication as found in FECA facially, McConnell v. Federal 
Election Commission, 540 U.S. 93, 204-205 (2003), and courts have refused to 
uphold expansive definitions such as those found in this proposed legislation. See 
Broward Coalition of Condominiums v. Browning, 2009 WL 1457972, Case No. 
4:08cv445-SPM/WCS (N.D. Fla.); and National Right to Work Legal Defense and 
Educ. Found., Inc. v. Herbert, 581 F.Supp.2d 1132 (2008). 
2. Sections 2 & 7, of SB 540 create a different prior restraint to speech. In this 
case, corporate speech is prohibited unless the corporation seeks and obtains prior 
approval from its members or shareholders to make disbursements for political 
purposes. So, in addition to the burdens of fulfilling PAC-style requirements, 
requiring additional hoops to be cleared before an organization can speak 
“function[s] as the equivalent of prior restraint.” Citizens United, 2010 WL 183856, 
at *16. Wisconsin must justify any such restraint on speech under strict scrutiny. 

Id. at *9. Without a showing of quid pro quo corruption, or its appearance, it will be 
unable to do this. Citizens United, 2010 WL 183856, at *34. The Citizens United 
Court specifically rejects the shareholder protection interest as a justification for a 
ban, id, and a prior restraint is, like a ban, equally prohibited. 

Wisconsin Right to Life urges your rejection of SB 540. 

Thank you.