The Center for Individual Freedom is committed to the protection for individual freedom provided by the rule of law, as embodied in the federal and state constitutions. Those fundamental documents both express and safeguard society's commitment to individual freedom not only through specific protections such as the Bill of Rights, but also through structural protections that constrain and disperse governmental authority. The First Amendment, for example, provides critical direct protections for individual freedoms of speech and religion, as well as indirect structural curbs on the exercise of government power. The Center thus fully agrees with the sentiment expressed by the United States Supreme Court when it said that

"at the heart of the First Amendment is the notion that an individual should be free to believe as he will, and that in a free society one's beliefs should be shaped by his mind and his conscience rather than coerced by the State." - Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Educ., 431 U.S. 209, 234-35 (1977).

Recognition of the individual as a free and voluntary actor, whose freedom must be protected as much as possible against infringement by the state lies at the heart of the Center's philosophy. Not only does such individual freedom of belief and expression stand as a pre-eminent value in its own right, it also stands as a bulwark against all other attempts to improperly constrain freedom.

"We set up government by consent of the governed, and the Bill of Rights denies those in power any legal opportunity to coerce that consent. Authority here is to be controlled by public opinion, not public opinion by authority." -West Virginia State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 641 (1943).

The greatness of our Constitution lies not only in its protection of individual freedom through specific individual rights forbidding certain uses of power, but also in its structural protection of freedom through the many constraints it places on any exercise of power. For example, the Center strongly supports the separation of power among different and competing branches of government. It supports both vertical separation between state and federal governments as expressed in concepts of federalism, and horizontal separation between the different branches of the federal government as expressed through concepts such as the separation of powers and nondelegation doctrines.

As the United States Supreme Court has potently observed regarding horizontal separation of powers:

"By allocating specific powers and responsibilities to a branch fitted to the task, the Framers created a National Government that is both effective and accountable. . . .The clear assignment of power to a branch, furthermore, allows the citizen to know who may be called to answer for making, or not making, those delicate and necessary decisions essential to governance."- Loving v. United States, 517 U.S. 748, 757-58 (1996).

Regarding the vertical separation of powers at the heart of our federalism, Justice Kennedy has similarly observed:

"The theory that two [branches] accord more liberty than one requires for its realization two distinct and discernable lines of political accountability ž. [C]itizens must have some means of knowing which of the two [branches] to hold accountable for the failure to perform a given function. ¬[Separation of powers] serves to assign political responsibility, not to obscure it.' " -Lopez, 514 U.S at 576-77 (alteration added, citations omitted).

Federalism and the nondelegation doctrine are intended to provide proper accountability for difficult and often divisive choices of government by demanding that particular entities take responsibility for those choices in a way that is transparent to the agents of government who must execute them, to the courts that must review them, and to the citizens who must finally judge them. Such assurances are an essential part of our constitutional system of government and play a vital role in securing individual freedom.

While constitutional restrictions on government power may often make the exercise of that power less efficient than it might be, rather than fear any such inefficiency we should applaud it as a bulwark preserving individual freedom. Authority too easily exercised often becomes insensitive at best and tyrannical at worst. The federal and state constitutions thus stand as essential protections of individual freedom.

The Center supports such constitutional protections through direct participation in the legal process, typically as amicus curiae in select cases before the United States Supreme Court and in other cases of national significance to individual freedoms. Copies of our amicus briefs, along with brief descriptions of the cases and related judicial decisions, are available below.

In addition to direct participation in the judicial process, the Center is committed to broad dissemination of information and ideas about legal issues affecting individual freedom. Through awareness, education, and candid debate about individual freedoms, members of the legal community and the general public will be better able to stand as guardians for such freedoms, either through their own participation in the legal process or at the ballot box. This web site includes several features to further that goal.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

September 30, 2004

Contact: Jeffrey Mazzella

703.535.5836

CFIF Challenges Louisiana Campaign Finance Laws
Group Charges State's Expenditure Restrictions and Disclosure Requirements Squash First Amendment Rights

The Center for Individual Freedom this week asked a federal district court in Louisiana to strike down the state's campaign finance laws as an unconstitutional restriction on the rights of free speech and free association.

At issue is the state's requirement that the Center, and other speakers, be forced to file onerous and intrusive reports anytime it spends more than $500 on activities enforcement authorities subjectively believe "support, oppose, or otherwise influence" an election. The reports must include the full name and address of all people contributing to the Center in any amount for any purpose at any time during the reporting period, not to mention the full financial status of the organization.

"Such onerous reporting requirements fly in the face of the free speech and association rights guaranteed by the First Amendment," said Jeffrey Mazzella, the Center's Executive Director. "Many of our supporters wish to remain private, and, in keeping with our staunch commitment to individual freedom, the Center will not betray their constitutional right to remain anonymous. Rather, we are demanding relief from Louisiana's restrictions which strike a blow at the heart of the First Amendment."

Last month, the Center filed the lawsuit and sought an emergency injunction against enforcement of Louisiana's unconstitutional campaign finance laws. Those actions were prompted after the Center realized it could not run radio and/or television advertisements on matters of public importance in Louisiana, including issues of criminal law enforcement and sentencing, legal reform and judicial decision-making, before the September 18 primary election for State Supreme Court. Both the federal district court in Shreveport and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled against emergency relief, thus the Center could not speak directly to Louisianans about such issues without reporting all of the organization's activities and contributors to the state.

"We were very upset with the district and appellate courts' rulings not to grant emergency relief," said Mazzella. "The muzzling effect of those rulings and the state enforcement authority's overbroad interpretation of Louisiana's campaign finance statutes have prevented us from speaking on issues of public importance at the time it was most important to do so - in the days leading up to the election. This week's request for permanent relief is an effort to restore not only our free speech and free association rights, but the First Amendment rights of all Americans who want to speak on public issues in Louisiana in the future," Mazzella concluded.

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Shreveport Division. The Center has retained First Amendment experts Jan Baran and Thomas Kirby of Wiley, Rein & Fielding to represent the organization.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

September 30, 2004

Contact: Jeffrey Mazzella

703.535.5836

CFIF Challenges Louisiana Campaign Finance Laws

Group Charges State's Expenditure Restrictions and Disclosure Requirements Squash First Amendment Rights

The Center for Individual Freedom this week asked a federal district court in Louisiana to strike down the state's campaign finance laws as an unconstitutional restriction on the rights of free speech and free association.

At issue is the state's requirement that the Center, and other speakers, be forced to file onerous and intrusive reports anytime it spends more than $500 on activities enforcement authorities subjectively believe "support, oppose, or otherwise influence" an election. The reports must include the full name and address of all people contributing to the Center in any amount for any purpose at any time during the reporting period, not to mention the full financial status of the organization.

"Such onerous reporting requirements fly in the face of the free speech and association rights guaranteed by the First Amendment," said Jeffrey Mazzella, the Center's Executive Director. "Many of our supporters wish to remain private, and, in keeping with our staunch commitment to individual freedom, the Center will not betray their constitutional right to remain anonymous. Rather, we are demanding relief from Louisiana's restrictions which strike a blow at the heart of the First Amendment."

Last month, the Center filed the lawsuit and sought an emergency injunction against enforcement of Louisiana's unconstitutional campaign finance laws. Those actions were prompted after the Center realized it could not run radio and/or television advertisements on matters of public importance in Louisiana, including issues of criminal law enforcement and sentencing, legal reform and judicial decision-making, before the September 18 primary election for State Supreme Court. Both the federal district court in Shreveport and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled against emergency relief, thus the Center could not speak directly to Louisianans about such issues without reporting all of the organization's activities and contributors to the state.

"We were very upset with the district and appellate courts' rulings not to grant emergency relief," said Mazzella. "The muzzling effect of those rulings and the state enforcement authority's overbroad interpretation of Louisiana's campaign finance statutes have prevented us from speaking on issues of public importance at the time it was most important to do so - in the days leading up to the election. This week's request for permanent relief is an effort to restore not only our free speech and free association rights, but the First Amendment rights of all Americans who want to speak on public issues in Louisiana in the future," Mazzella concluded.

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Shreveport Division. The Center has retained First Amendment experts Jan Baran and Thomas Kirby of Wiley, Rein & Fielding to represent the organization.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

September 30, 2004

Contact: Jeffrey Mazzella

703.535.5836

CFIF Challenges Louisiana Campaign Finance Laws

Group Charges State's Expenditure Restrictions and Disclosure Requirements Squash First Amendment Rights

The Center for Individual Freedom this week asked a federal district court in Louisiana to strike down the state's campaign finance laws as an unconstitutional restriction on the rights of free speech and free association.

At issue is the state's requirement that the Center, and other speakers, be forced to file onerous and intrusive reports anytime it spends more than $500 on activities enforcement authorities subjectively believe "support, oppose, or otherwise influence" an election. The reports must include the full name and address of all people contributing to the Center in any amount for any purpose at any time during the reporting period, not to mention the full financial status of the organization.

"Such onerous reporting requirements fly in the face of the free speech and association rights guaranteed by the First Amendment," said Jeffrey Mazzella, the Center's Executive Director. "Many of our supporters wish to remain private, and, in keeping with our staunch commitment to individual freedom, the Center will not betray their constitutional right to remain anonymous. Rather, we are demanding relief from Louisiana's restrictions which strike a blow at the heart of the First Amendment."

Last month, the Center filed the lawsuit and sought an emergency injunction against enforcement of Louisiana's unconstitutional campaign finance laws. Those actions were prompted after the Center realized it could not run radio and/or television advertisements on matters of public importance in Louisiana, including issues of criminal law enforcement and sentencing, legal reform and judicial decision-making, before the September 18 primary election for State Supreme Court. Both the federal district court in Shreveport and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled against emergency relief, thus the Center could not speak directly to Louisianans about such issues without reporting all of the organization's activities and contributors to the state.

"We were very upset with the district and appellate courts' rulings not to grant emergency relief," said Mazzella. "The muzzling effect of those rulings and the state enforcement authority's overbroad interpretation of Louisiana's campaign finance statutes have prevented us from speaking on issues of public importance at the time it was most important to do so - in the days leading up to the election. This week's request for permanent relief is an effort to restore not only our free speech and free association rights, but the First Amendment rights of all Americans who want to speak on public issues in Louisiana in the future," Mazzella concluded.

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Shreveport Division. The Center has retained First Amendment experts Jan Baran and Thomas Kirby of Wiley, Rein & Fielding to represent the organization.

The Complaint


Motion for Tro and Preliminary Injunction

Motion for Expedited Final Judgement