COMMITTEE FOR JUSTICE & FAIRNESS v. Arizona Secretary of State's Office ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                                    IN THE
    ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS
    DIVISION ONE
    COMMITTEE FOR JUSTICE & FAIRNESS (CJF), a non-profit organization,
    Plaintiff/Appellee,
    v.
    ARIZONA SECRETARY OF STATE’S OFFICE, a governmental entity; KEN
    BENNETT, in his official capacity as Secretary of State; AMY CHAN, in her
    official capacity as State Elections Director for the Secretary of State; WILLIAM
    G. MONTGOMERY, Maricopa County Attorney, in his official capacity;
    MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, a governmental entity,
    Defendants/Appellants.
    No. 1 CA-CV 13-0037
    FILED 08-07-2014
    Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
    No. LC2011-000734-001
    The Honorable Crane McClennen, Judge
    VACATED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART
    COUNSEL
    Polsinelli, P.C., Phoenix
    By Marty Harper, Thomas K. Irvine
    Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellee
    Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix
    By M. Colleen Connor, Bruce P. White
    Counsel for Defendants/Appellants
    Ballard Spahr, L.L.P., Phoenix
    By Joseph A. Kanefield, Brunn W. Roysden III
    Counsel for Amicus Curiae Citizens Clean Elections Commission
    Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation, Phoenix
    By Nicholas C. Dranias
    Counsel for Amicus Curiae Goldwater Institute
    OPINION
    Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Presiding
    Judge Patricia A. Orozco and Judge Kenton D. Jones joined.
    W I N T H R O P, Judge:
    ¶1            The Committee for Justice and Fairness (“CJF”) is a national
    political organization that operates primarily for the purpose of influencing
    state and local elections. In 2010, CJF financed the creation and
    dissemination of an advertisement broadcast on a Phoenix-area television
    station immediately before the general election. The ad attacked the record
    of one of the two candidates for Attorney General, Tom Horne. After
    learning CJF had failed to follow Arizona’s registration and disclosure
    requirements applicable to political committees that raise and spend money
    to influence the outcome of an election in Arizona, see generally Ariz. Rev.
    Stat. (“A.R.S.”) §§ 16-901 to -925,1 the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office
    (“MCAO”) issued an order pursuant to § 16-924,2 requiring CJF to register
    as a political committee and comply with Arizona’s campaign finance
    reporting and disclosure laws.
    ¶2           After an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) recommended
    MCAO’s order be upheld, the Maricopa County Attorney issued a Final
    Decision ordering CJF to register as a political committee and comply with
    the applicable campaign reporting and disclosure requirements. The
    1     We cite the current version of the applicable statutes unless
    otherwise indicated.
    2      Section 16-924 provides for the Attorney General or a county
    attorney to issue orders requiring compliance and otherwise assessing civil
    penalties for violations of Arizona’s laws pertaining to campaign
    contributions and expenses.
    2
    CJF v. ARIZONA et al.
    Opinion of the Court
    superior court reversed and vacated the recommended order and Final
    Decision after concluding (1) the ad was not subject to Arizona’s disclosure
    requirements because it was merely issue-oriented speech rather than
    express advocacy, and (2) the disclosure statutes at issue are
    unconstitutional.
    ¶3            In this opinion, we conclude CJF’s advertisement qualifies as
    “express advocacy” as defined in A.R.S. § 16-901.01(A)(2)(a), the
    advertisement qualifies as an independent expenditure designed to
    influence the 2010 Attorney General election, and CJF is a political
    committee that must comply with Arizona’s political committee
    registration and disclosure requirements. We also conclude the superior
    court erred in finding the applicable statutes unconstitutional.
    Accordingly, we vacate the portion of the superior court’s judgment
    holding unconstitutional A.R.S. § 16-901.01(A)(1) and the now-repealed
    subpart (b) of § 16-901.01(A)(2), and reverse the remainder of the court’s
    judgment.
    FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
    ¶4            In 2010, shortly before the November general election, CJF
    caused to be broadcast on Phoenix area Channel 12 a television
    advertisement regarding Tom Horne, one of the two candidates for
    Attorney General. At the time, Horne was still the Superintendent for
    Public Instruction. The advertisement claimed that (1) when Horne was a
    state legislator, he had “voted against tougher penalties for statutory
    rape,”3 and (2) when Horne was on the Arizona Board of Education, he
    used his vote to allow “back in the classroom” a teacher who had been
    caught by students “looking at child pornography on a school computer.“4
    3       As a state representative in 2000, Horne voted against House Bill
    2587, a bill that would in part have raised statutory rape from a class six
    felony to a class four felony. See Sexual Conduct With a Minor, H.R. 2587,
    44th Leg. (2nd Reg. Sess. 2000). The bill failed by a 41-12 vote of the
    Committee of the Whole, due in part to concerns the bill went too far and
    would punish teens having consensual sex with other teens, such as an 18-
    year-old in a sexual relationship with a 17-year-old. The majority of the
    bill’s co-sponsors also voted against the bill.
    4     In 2006, the teacher was recertified by a 6-5 vote of the State Board of
    Education, four years after he resigned in 2002. The recertification action
    had been recommended by the education department’s Professional
    3
    CJF v. ARIZONA et al.
    Opinion of the Court
    The advertisement urged viewers to “[t]ell Superintendent Horne to protect
    children, not people who harm them,” and displayed photographs of
    Horne and his office telephone number as Superintendent of Public
    Instruction.
    ¶5            On October 21, 2010, Horne filed suit in Maricopa County
    Superior Court, seeking a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) to enjoin
    CJF and local television stations from airing the advertisement. Based on
    Pacion v. Thomas, 
    225 Ariz. 168
    , 
    236 P.3d 395
    (2010), and the exclusive
    remedy set forth in A.R.S. §§ 16-912(E) and 16-924, the superior court
    denied Horne’s application for a TRO. See Horne v. Committee for Justice &
    Fairness, Maricopa County Cause No. CV 2010-053307 (order dated Oct. 27,
    2010).
    ¶6            Meanwhile, on October 22, 2010, Horne’s election committee
    filed with the Arizona Secretary of State a complaint alleging CJF had
    engaged in express advocacy and was thus subject to the requirements of
    A.R.S. § 16-901 et seq. The complaint alleged that, before broadcasting the
    advertisement, CJF did not register as a political committee but had made
    expenditures to influence the outcome of the election for Attorney General
    without complying with Arizona’s campaign finance reporting and
    disclosure requirements.
    ¶7            On October 25, 2010, the Arizona Secretary of State issued a
    Reasonable Cause Notice, stating there was reasonable cause to believe CJF
    had violated A.R.S. §§ 16-902 and 16-912. The Arizona Secretary of State
    notified the Attorney General of that finding. Horne was ultimately elected
    Attorney General, and to avoid any conflict of interest, the Arizona
    Attorney General’s Office requested by letter dated January 26, 2011, that
    MCAO assume enforcement and litigation of the matter.
    ¶8           On May 23, 2011, MCAO issued an Order Requiring
    Compliance to CJF pursuant to A.R.S. § 16-924. The order required CJF to
    do the following: (1) register as a political committee with the Arizona
    Secretary of State, (2) notify the Secretary of State of CJF’s designated
    Practices Advisory Committee, which concluded the teacher had
    demonstrated over the previous four years that he was rehabilitated. The
    ALJ ultimately found CJF’s advertisement contained “inaccurate
    information” because the reference to the school teacher who had been
    discovered viewing child pornography was “false.” (A previous forensic
    review of the computer by the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office revealed
    adult pornography on the teacher’s computer, but no child pornography.)
    4
    CJF v. ARIZONA et al.
    Opinion of the Court
    financial institutions, (3) file the required campaign finance reports, (4)
    provide financial records reflecting the cost of producing the
    advertisements, (5) comply with the requirements of Arizona’s campaign
    finance laws, and (6) comply with the request for financial records. As
    permitted in A.R.S. § 16-924(A), CJF requested a hearing, and MCAO
    forwarded that appeal to the Office of Administrative Hearings for a formal
    hearing.
    ¶9            On August 31, 2011, the ALJ held an administrative hearing,
    and on September 23, he issued a Decision, supported by his findings of
    fact and conclusions of law. The ALJ determined in part that (1) CJF had
    made expenditures that expressly advocated against the election of Horne,
    (2) CJF is a political committee as defined by A.R.S. § 16-901(19), (3) CJF
    violated A.R.S. § 16-902.01(A) by failing to register as a political committee,
    (4) CJF was required to file campaign finance reports pursuant to A.R.S.
    §§ 16-913, -915, and -918, (5) CJF’s failure to do so violated A.R.S. § 16-913,
    and (6) CJF had violated A.R.S. § 16-904(J) by failing to respond to MCAO’s
    request for financial records reflecting the cost for the production of the
    television advertisement. The ALJ’s Decision recommended MCAO’s May
    23, 2011 Order Requiring Compliance be affirmed and upheld, and CJF be
    ordered to register as a political committee and comply with the applicable
    campaign reporting and disclosure requirements. On October 17, 2011, the
    Maricopa County Attorney issued a Final Decision accepting and adopting
    the ALJ’s findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommended order.
    ¶10           CJF filed a complaint in the Maricopa County Superior Court
    seeking judicial review of the Maricopa County Attorney’s October 17 Final
    Decision accepting and adopting the ALJ’s September 23 Decision. See
    A.R.S. §§ 12-124(A), -904(B), -905(A), 16-924(C). After briefing by the parties
    and oral argument, the superior court took the matter under advisement.
    ¶11           In a minute entry filed October 11, 2012, the superior court
    reversed and vacated the recommended order of the ALJ and the Final
    Decision of the Maricopa County Attorney. The superior court concluded
    (1) the advertisement “was issue-oriented speech and not ‘express
    advocacy,’” (and thus CJF was not required to register or file financial
    reports), and (2) “A.R.S. §§ 16-901, -901.01, -902.01, -913, and related statutes
    are unconstitutional.”5 The court provided no analysis or explanation,
    5      Assuming the superior court’s initial ruling can be understood as
    determining CJF was not subject to the statutory registration and disclosure
    requirements, the court did not have to further address the constitutionality
    5
    CJF v. ARIZONA et al.
    Opinion of the Court
    other than to conclude “the authorities and arguments presented by CJF are
    well-taken.”
    ¶12           On November 28, 2012, the superior court entered its final
    judgment in favor of CJF, including an award of costs and attorneys’ fees.
    The final judgment identified only the following provisions of Arizona’s
    campaign finance laws as unconstitutional: (1) the portion of A.R.S. § 16-
    901.01(A)(1) that includes the phrase “or a campaign slogan or words that
    in context can have no reasonable meaning other than to advocate the
    election or defeat of one or more clearly identified candidates,” (2) A.R.S.
    § 16-901.01(A)(2)(a), and (3) A.R.S. § 16-901.01(A)(2)(b).6
    ¶13           The Arizona Secretary of State and MCAO filed a timely
    notice of appeal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 12-913 and 12-
    2101(A)(1).
    ANALYSIS
    ¶14          In its opening brief, MCAO raises two issues for review: (1)
    whether CJF qualifies as a political committee that must comply with
    Arizona’s political committee registration and disclosure requirements, and
    (2) whether Arizona’s disclosure requirements are constitutional.
    I.     Was CJF Required To Comply With Arizona’s Political Committee
    Registration And Disclosure Requirements?
    A.     Standard of Review
    ¶15          Subsection (C) of A.R.S. § 16-924 makes the Administrative
    Review Act (“ARA”), see A.R.S. §§ 12-901 to -914, applicable here. As such,
    we rely on cases under the ARA relating to actions by executive branch
    of the statutes, and that part of its decision may be considered an advisory
    ruling.
    6       The final judgment was submitted by counsel for CJF. It is not clear
    from the judgment whether the superior court intended to scale back its
    previous ruling that “A.R.S. §§ 16-901, -901.01, -902.01, -913, and related
    statutes are unconstitutional,” or whether its final judgment might be
    construed as a clarification that only the majority of A.R.S. § 16-901.01(A) is
    unconstitutional, and § 16-901.01(A)’s unconstitutionality effectively
    invalidates the efficacy of the other statutes. Ultimately, however, this lack
    of clarity does not affect our analysis.
    6
    CJF v. ARIZONA et al.
    Opinion of the Court
    agencies. In this case, the superior court’s scope of review was
    circumscribed by A.R.S. § 12-910(E):
    The court may affirm, reverse, modify or vacate and
    remand the agency action. The court shall affirm the agency
    action unless after reviewing the administrative record and
    supplementing evidence presented at the evidentiary hearing
    the court concludes that the action is not supported by
    substantial evidence, is contrary to law, is arbitrary and
    capricious or is an abuse of discretion.
    ¶16           Thus, in reviewing an administrative decision, the superior
    court examines whether the challenged action was illegal, arbitrary,
    capricious, or involved an abuse of discretion. See Gaveck v. Ariz. State Bd.
    of Podiatry Exam’rs, 
    222 Ariz. 433
    , 436, ¶ 11, 
    215 P.3d 1114
    , 1117 (App. 2009);
    Havasu Heights Ranch & Dev. Corp. v. Desert Valley Wood Prods., Inc., 
    167 Ariz. 383
    , 386, 
    807 P.2d 1119
    , 1122 (App. 1990). The superior court defers to
    factual findings supported by substantial evidence, and may not substitute
    its own judgment where factual questions and substantive expertise are
    involved. See 
    Gaveck, 222 Ariz. at 436
    , ¶ 
    11, 215 P.3d at 1117
    (“If an agency’s
    decision is supported by the record, substantial evidence exists to support
    the decision even if the record also supports a different conclusion.” (citing
    DeGroot v. Ariz. Racing Comm’n, 
    141 Ariz. 331
    , 336, 
    686 P.2d 1301
    , 1306 (App.
    1984))).
    ¶17            On appeal, we determine whether the record contains
    evidence to support the superior court’s judgment, and in so doing, we also
    reach the underlying question of whether the administrative entity acted in
    contravention of the law, arbitrarily, capriciously, or in abuse of its
    discretion. Saldate v. Montgomery, 
    228 Ariz. 495
    , 498, ¶ 10, 
    268 P.3d 1152
    ,
    1155 (App. 2012); accord Sanders v. Novick, 
    151 Ariz. 606
    , 608, 
    729 P.2d 960
    ,
    962 (App. 1986). In administrative appeals, neither the superior court nor
    this court reweighs the evidence. St. Joseph’s Hosp. v. Ariz. Health Care Cost
    Containment Sys., 
    185 Ariz. 309
    , 312, 
    916 P.2d 499
    , 502 (App. 1996) (citing
    Havasu 
    Heights, 167 Ariz. at 387
    , 807 P.2d at 1123). Nevertheless, “[w]hether
    substantial evidence exists is a question of law for our independent
    determination.” 
    Gaveck, 222 Ariz. at 436
    , ¶ 
    12, 215 P.3d at 1117
    (citations
    omitted). Furthermore, we review de novo the legal issues, including those
    involving statutory interpretation. Id.; Kromko v. City of Tucson, 
    202 Ariz. 499
    , 501, ¶ 4, 
    47 P.3d 1137
    , 1139 (App. 2002).
    7
    CJF v. ARIZONA et al.
    Opinion of the Court
    B.      Analysis
    ¶18         MCAO argues that CJF qualifies as a political committee that
    must comply with Arizona’s political committee registration and disclosure
    requirements. We agree.
    ¶19            Title 16, Chapter 6, of the Arizona Revised Statutes provides
    the statutory framework for the regulation of “Campaign Contributions
    and Expenses” in Arizona. Under A.R.S. § 16-902.01(A), “[e]ach political
    committee that intends to accept contributions or make expenditures of
    more than five hundred dollars shall file a statement of organization . . .
    before accepting contributions [or] making expenditures.” Additionally, a
    political committee making an expenditure for an advertisement expressly
    advocating the election or defeat of a candidate “shall be registered
    pursuant to this chapter at the time of distribution [or] placement . . . and
    shall include on the . . . advertisement the words ‘paid for by’ followed by
    the name of the committee that appears on its statement of organization or
    five hundred dollar exemption statement.” A.R.S. § 16-912(A); see also
    A.R.S. § 16-902.01(A) (providing for registration of political committees). If
    the expenditure for a political committee’s advertisement is an independent
    expenditure, see infra ¶ 23, the political committee must also “include on the
    . . . advertisement the names and telephone numbers of the three political
    committees making the largest contributions to the political committee
    making the independent expenditure.” A.R.S. § 16-912(B). Other
    disclosure requirements apply for political committees as well. See, e.g.,
    A.R.S. §§ 16-902 (providing requirements for the organization of political
    committees); -902.01(B) (listing the required contents of a statement of
    organization); -902.02 (addressing registration and initial reporting of out-
    of-state political committees); -904 (providing the duties of a political
    committee’s treasurer); -913 (requiring the filing of campaign finance
    reports).
    ¶20           Under A.R.S. § 16-901(19), a political committee is defined in
    pertinent part as follows:
    “Political committee” means . . . any association or
    combination of persons that is organized, conducted or
    combined for the purpose of influencing the result of any election
    or to determine whether an individual will become a
    candidate for election in this state . . . that engages in political
    activity in behalf of or against a candidate for election . . . that
    receives contributions or makes expenditures of more than two
    hundred fifty dollars in connection therewith, notwithstanding
    8
    CJF v. ARIZONA et al.
    Opinion of the Court
    that the association or combination of persons may be part of
    a larger association, combination of persons or sponsoring
    organization not primarily organized, conducted or
    combined for the purpose of influencing the result of any
    election in this state or in any county, city, town or precinct in
    this state.
    (Emphasis added.)7 Thus, a committee or group organized for the purpose
    of influencing the result of an election, which engages in political activity
    for or against a candidate and makes expenditures8 in connection
    therewith, qualifies as a political committee subject to registration and
    disclosure requirements. See generally Van Riper v. Threadgill, 
    183 Ariz. 580
    ,
    582-83, 
    905 P.2d 589
    , 591-92 (App. 1995).
    ¶21           In this case, the ALJ found that CJF, whose business office is
    in Washington, D.C. and primary financial contributor is the Democratic
    Attorneys General Association (“DAGA”) located in Denver, Colorado, is a
    political organization as defined by the Internal Revenue Code at 26 U.S.C.
    § 527, and that, in its 2009 Form 90-EZ filed with the Internal Revenue
    Service, CJF acknowledged, as its “primary exempt purpose,” that it
    operates “for the purpose of accepting donations in order to make
    disbursements . . . to indirectly influence the selection, nomination, election,
    or appointment of individuals to state or local public office.”9 The ALJ
    further found that, at the time of the broadcast, Horne was a Republican
    candidate for the office of Attorney General, and that CJF spent
    7      In 2012, the legislature amended subsection (19) of the statute by
    adding the phrase “of more than two hundred fifty dollars.” See 2012 Ariz.
    Sess. Laws, ch. 361, § 16 (2nd Reg. Sess.).
    8     The term “expenditure“ includes a payment of money for the
    purpose of influencing an election in this state. See A.R.S. § 16-901(8).
    9      A political organization that is influencing or attempting to influence
    the selection, nomination, election, or appointment of an individual to a
    federal, state, or local public office is tax-exempt on its gross receipts over
    $25,000 if the organization registers and files disclosure statements under
    § 527 of the Internal Revenue Code. See 26 U.S.C. § 527.
    9
    CJF v. ARIZONA et al.
    Opinion of the Court
    approximately $1.5 million to produce and broadcast the advertisement in
    question. The record fully supports the ALJ’s factual findings.10
    ¶22           CJF cannot and does not dispute that it is a political
    organization, or that it spent money to create and disseminate the
    advertisement in question. Nevertheless, CJF argues, and the ALJ found,
    that nowhere in the advertisement is there a specific reference to Horne as
    a candidate, and the advertisement does not mention any other candidate,
    election, or political party. CJF therefore maintains it should not be
    required to register as a political committee and comply with the disclosure
    requirements because its advertisement was merely an “issue-oriented
    television ad” designed to advocate “for America’s middle-class families”
    and did not qualify as political activity designed to influence the impending
    election for Attorney General.
    ¶23           MCAO argues, however, that CJF’s advertisement qualifies as
    an independent expenditure designed to influence the 2010 Attorney
    General election. An independent expenditure is defined in pertinent part
    as follows:
    “Independent expenditure” means an expenditure by a
    person or political committee, other than a candidate’s
    campaign committee, that expressly advocates the election or
    defeat of a clearly identified candidate, that is made without
    cooperation or consultation with any candidate or committee
    or agent of the candidate and that is not made in concert with
    or at the request or suggestion of a candidate, or any
    committee or agent of the candidate.
    A.R.S. § 16-901(14) (emphasis added).
    ¶24            The parties’ argument revolves around the “expressly
    advocates” language of A.R.S. § 16-901(14) and whether the advertisement
    qualifies as “express advocacy.” See also A.R.S. § 16-912. If so, CJF concedes
    it would be subject to the political committee registration and disclosure
    requirements. As pertinent here, in 2010, A.R.S. § 16-901.01(A) defined the
    term “expressly advocates” as follows:
    10     Based on these factual findings, the ALJ concluded as a matter of law
    that “CJF is a political committee, as defined by A.R.S. § 16-901(19).”
    10
    CJF v. ARIZONA et al.
    Opinion of the Court
    A.    For purposes of this chapter, “expressly advocates”
    means:
    1.     Conveying a communication containing a phrase such
    as “vote for,” “elect,” “re-elect,” “support,” “endorse,” “cast
    your ballot for,” “(name of candidate) in (year),” “(name of
    candidate) for (office),” “vote against,” “defeat,” “reject,” or a
    campaign slogan or words that in context can have no
    reasonable meaning other than to advocate the election or
    defeat of one or more clearly identified candidates, or
    2.     Making a general public communication, such as in a
    broadcast medium, newspaper, magazine, billboard, or direct
    mailer referring to one or more clearly identified candidates and
    targeted to the electorate of that candidate(s):
    (a)     That in context can have no reasonable meaning other than
    to advocate the election or defeat of the candidate(s), as evidenced
    by factors such as the presentation of the candidate(s) in a
    favorable or unfavorable light, the targeting, placement, or
    timing of the communication, or the inclusion of statements
    of the candidate(s) or opponents, or
    (b)   In the sixteen-week period immediately preceding a
    general election.
    A.R.S. § 16-901.01(A) (emphasis added).
    ¶25          In this case, CJF’s advertisement clearly did not use any of the
    “magic words” listed in A.R.S. § 16-901.01(A)(1), and MCAO does not
    appear to argue the advertisement contained a campaign slogan or similar
    words that would qualify as express advocacy under the remainder of
    subsection (A)(1).11 Consequently, the remainder of our analysis focuses on
    11      Because it appears subsection (A)(1) of A.R.S. § 16-901.01 is
    inapplicable to this case, its constitutionality was not properly before the
    superior court and is not properly before this court. See Progressive Specialty
    Ins. Co. v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Ariz., 
    143 Ariz. 547
    , 548, 
    694 P.2d 835
    , 836 (App.
    1985) (“It is not an appellate court’s function to declare principles of law
    which cannot have any practical effect in settling the rights of litigants.”
    (citation omitted)). As a matter of judicial restraint, courts should not give
    advisory opinions. See Home Builders Ass’n of Cent. Ariz. v. Kard, 
    219 Ariz. 374
    , 377, ¶ 9, 
    199 P.3d 629
    , 632 (App. 2008). Accordingly, we vacate as
    11
    CJF v. ARIZONA et al.
    Opinion of the Court
    whether CJF’s advertisement qualifies as express advocacy under
    subsection (2) of A.R.S. § 16-901.01(A). We turn first to the question of
    whether CJF’s advertisement qualifies as express advocacy under subpart
    (a) of A.R.S. § 16-901.01(A)(2).
    ¶26           In his conclusions of law, the ALJ concluded that “CJF’s
    advertisement constituted express advocacy pursuant to A.R.S. § 16-
    901.01(A)(2).” Although not bound by the ALJ’s legal conclusion, we
    nevertheless agree with his conclusion and note the factual findings
    underpinning his reasoning are supported by substantial evidence. As the
    ALJ recognized:
    The advertisement referred by name to Tom Horne, who was
    by that time clearly identified as the Republican candidate for
    Attorney General. It was aired on Channel 12, which
    broadcasts in the greater Phoenix metropolitan area and
    beyond, and thus may be presumed to have targeted the
    electorate for such a statewide office.          Although the
    advertisement only referred to Tom Horne in his then[-]
    position of Superintendent of Public Instruction and called
    upon viewers to contact him at his office in the Department of
    Education, the only reasonable purpose for running an
    advertisement, during an election campaign, which cost
    approximately $1.5 million to produce and broadcast, to
    critique Tom Horne’s past actions as a former member of the
    inapplicable that portion of the superior court’s judgment finding
    unconstitutional the portion of A.R.S. § 16-901.01(A)(1) containing the
    phrase “or a campaign slogan or words that in context can have no
    reasonable meaning other than to advocate the election or defeat of one or
    more clearly identified candidates.” We also note the superior court’s
    ruling with respect to that provision is in conflict with this court’s previous
    opinion in Kromko. 
    See 202 Ariz. at 502-03
    , ¶¶ 
    9-10, 47 P.3d at 1140-41
    .
    Moreover, language nearly identical to that codified in subsection (A)(1)
    has been examined with approval by federal courts. See, e.g., Free Speech v.
    Fed. Election Comm’n, 
    720 F.3d 788
    , 793-94 (10th Cir. 2013) (stating that the
    language of 11 C.F.R. § 100.22(a) is consistent with the Supreme Court’s
    guidance in Buckley v. Valeo, 
    424 U.S. 1
    , 44 (1976)), cert. denied, 
    134 S. Ct. 2288
    (2014); see also McConnell v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 
    540 U.S. 93
    , 190-94 (2003)
    (recognizing “the presence or absence of magic words cannot meaningfully
    distinguish electioneering speech from a true issue ad”), overruled in part on
    other grounds by Citizens United v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 
    558 U.S. 310
    (2010).
    12
    CJF v. ARIZONA et al.
    Opinion of the Court
    legislature and as an occupant of a post he would soon vacate,
    was to advocate his defeat as candidate for Attorney General.
    ¶27           These facts meet the test for express advocacy under A.R.S.
    § 16-901.01(A)(2)(a). The broadcast medium utilized by CJF for its public
    communication, Phoenix television Channel 12, which broadcasts in the
    greater Phoenix metropolitan area and beyond, clearly targeted a major
    portion of the electorate for the statewide office of Attorney General, and it
    did so within days of the election. In fact, nothing in the record indicates it
    would have been possible to more narrowly target such a significant
    portion of the electorate for that office.
    ¶28           Further, although CJF argues Horne was not a “clearly
    identified candidate” because the advertisement did not specifically
    identify him as a candidate for Attorney General, no question exists that
    Horne was in fact a “clearly identified candidate” as defined under
    Arizona’s statutory scheme. “‘Clearly identified candidate’ means that the
    name, a photograph or a drawing of the candidate appears or the identity
    of the candidate is otherwise apparent by unambiguous reference.” A.R.S.
    § 16-901(4). Accord 11 C.F.R. § 100.17. In the advertisement promulgated
    by CJF, Horne was identified through his name, photographs, and his prior
    and then-current public offices. Moreover, by the time the advertisement
    was run, Horne had been clearly identified to the general populace as the
    Republican candidate for Attorney General. It was unnecessary for the
    advertisement to further identify the position he sought.
    ¶29           Finally, as the ALJ noted, the advertisement criticized Horne’s
    past actions both as a former member of the legislature and as the
    Superintendent for Public Instruction, a position he would soon vacate.
    Contrary to CJF’s argument that the advertisement “addressed the
    important issue of protecting Arizona[‘s] schoolchildren from statutory
    rape and from teachers who view pornographic materials in the
    classroom,” the only reasonable purpose for running such an advertisement
    immediately before the election was to advocate Horne’s defeat as
    candidate for Attorney General.
    ¶30           In sum, CJF as a political organization made a general public
    communication in a broadcast medium referring to a clearly identified
    candidate and targeted to the electorate of that candidate, that in context
    could have no reasonable meaning other than to advocate the defeat of that
    candidate, as evidenced by factors such as the presentation of the candidate
    in an unfavorable light and the targeting, placement, and timing of the
    communication. In this case, reasonable minds could not differ as to
    13
    CJF v. ARIZONA et al.
    Opinion of the Court
    whether CJF’s advertisement encouraged a vote against Horne.12 As a
    result, CJF’s advertisement was express advocacy as statutorily defined in
    A.R.S. § 16-901.01(A)(2)(a).13 Therefore, under Arizona’s statutes, CJF was
    a political committee that made independent expenditures and was
    required to comply with Arizona’s political committee registration and
    campaign contribution disclosure laws.
    II.    Are Arizona’s Disclosure Requirements Constitutional?
    ¶31           MCAO next argues the superior court erred in concluding
    that A.R.S. § 16-901.01(A)(2)(a) and Arizona’s registration and disclosure
    requirements, which closely parallel federal law, are unconstitutional. CJF
    maintains Arizona’s definition of express advocacy under A.R.S. § 16-
    901.01(A)(2)(a) is unconstitutional, and challenges its status as a political
    committee and the resulting political committee registration and campaign
    contribution disclosure requirements. We agree with MCAO.
    12      See generally Citizens 
    United, 558 U.S. at 326
    (“[T]here is no reasonable
    interpretation of [the film] Hillary other than as an appeal to vote against
    Senator Clinton.”); Fed. Election Comm’n v. Furgatch, 
    807 F.2d 857
    , 864-65 (9th
    Cir. 1987) (“There is vagueness in Furgatch’s message, but no ambiguity.”);
    but see Cal. Pro-Life Council, Inc. v. Getman, 
    328 F.3d 1088
    , 1098 (9th Cir. 2003)
    (“[A] close reading of Furgatch indicates that we presumed express
    advocacy must contain some explicit words of advocacy.”); 
    Kromko, 202 Ariz. at 502-03
    , ¶¶ 
    10-11, 47 P.3d at 1140-41
    (adopting in part Furgatch, but
    appearing to limit its holding in light of criticism of Furgatch).
    13      Because we hold that CJF’s advertisement qualifies as express
    advocacy under subpart (a) of A.R.S. § 16-901.01(A)(2), we need not and do
    not analyze whether the advertisement qualifies as express advocacy under
    subpart (b) of the statute. Although the superior court’s final judgment
    found unconstitutional both subparts (a) and (b) of A.R.S. § 16-901.01(A)(2),
    the legislature repealed subpart (b) (and also made insignificant
    amendments to subsection (A)(1)) before the court issued its final judgment.
    See 2012 Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch. 257, § 1 (2nd Reg. Sess.). The superior court’s
    ruling as to the constitutionality of subpart (b) was merely an advisory
    ruling on a repealed subsection of the statute; consequently, we vacate that
    portion of the superior court’s judgment and do not further analyze subpart
    (b)’s constitutionality. See Home Builders 
    Ass’n, 219 Ariz. at 377
    , ¶ 
    9, 199 P.3d at 632
    ; Progressive Specialty Ins. 
    Co., 143 Ariz. at 548
    , 694 P.2d at 836.
    14
    CJF v. ARIZONA et al.
    Opinion of the Court
    A.      Standard of Review – Exacting Scrutiny
    ¶32            The parties disagree as to the standard of review this court
    should employ in analyzing the statutes at issue, either “strict scrutiny” or
    a less stringent “exacting scrutiny” standard. Citing Federal Election
    Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. (“WRTL”), CJF argues it was
    involved in issue advocacy, and the strict scrutiny standard must be applied
    to any statute attempting to regulate or prohibit such speech. See 
    551 U.S. 449
    , 464 (2007) (“Because [the statute] burdens political speech, it is subject
    to strict scrutiny.”).14 Under strict scrutiny, the government must prove
    that applying the challenged statutes to CJF’s advertisement “furthers a
    compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to that interest.” 
    Id. (citation omitted).
    ¶33            In this case, however, because A.R.S. § 16-901.01(A)(2)(a) and
    the statutes related to it ultimately implicate only disclosure requirements,
    we apply the exacting scrutiny standard. See Free 
    Speech, 720 F.3d at 792-93
    ;
    see also N.M. Youth Org. v. Herrera, 
    611 F.3d 669
    , 676 (10th Cir. 2010)
    (indicating a challenge to regulations defining a political committee is a
    challenge to disclosure regulations). Although disclaimer and disclosure
    requirements may burden the ability to speak, they “impose no ceiling on
    campaign-related activities,” and “do not prevent anyone from speaking.”
    Citizens 
    United, 558 U.S. at 366
    (quoting 
    Buckley, 424 U.S. at 64
    ; 
    McConnell, 540 U.S. at 201
    ). The Supreme Court subjects disclosure and disclaimer
    requirements to exacting scrutiny, which requires the government to
    demonstrate “a ‘substantial relation’ between the disclosure requirement
    and a ‘sufficiently important’ governmental interest.” Citizens 
    United, 558 U.S. at 366
    -67 (citing 
    Buckley, 424 U.S. at 64
    , 66; 
    McConnell, 540 U.S. at 231
    -
    32); accord Real Truth About Abortion (“RTAA”) v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 
    681 F.3d 544
    , 549 (4th Cir. 2012) (“[A]n intermediate level of scrutiny known as
    ‘exacting scrutiny’ is the appropriate standard to apply in reviewing
    provisions that impose disclosure requirements, such as the regulation and
    policy.” (citations omitted)), cert. denied, 
    133 S. Ct. 841
    (2013); Human Life of
    Washington, Inc. v. Brumsickle, 
    624 F.3d 990
    , 1005 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Doe
    v. Reed, 
    561 U.S. 186
    , 196 (2010)), cert. denied, 
    131 S. Ct. 1477
    (2011).
    14     WRTL applied the strict scrutiny standard when examining the
    constitutionality of § 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002
    (“BCRA”), 2 U.S.C. § 441b(b)(2) (2000 ed., Supp. IV), as applied to specific
    issue-oriented ads, which the Court held were not the functional equivalent
    of express advocacy. 
    See 551 U.S. at 455-57
    , 464-65, 476-77. WRTL does not,
    however, support CJF’s premise that CJF’s advertisement was solely issue
    advocacy. See 
    id. at 455-76.
    15
    CJF v. ARIZONA et al.
    Opinion of the Court
    ¶34             Moreover, CJF’s reference to Citizens United for its argument
    in favor of the application of strict scrutiny is misplaced. See 
    RTAA, 681 F.3d at 549
    . CJF notes the Citizens United majority’s reference to “onerous
    restrictions” on political action committee speech, which would ordinarily
    be subject to strict scrutiny, 
    see 558 U.S. at 337-40
    , and argues that Arizona’s
    statutory scheme is similar to the one in Citizens United. As the Fourth
    Circuit Court of Appeals has recognized, however, the Supreme Court in
    Citizens United “distinguished its application of the strict scrutiny standard
    to expenditure restrictions from the exacting scrutiny standard applicable
    to disclosure requirement provisions.” 
    RTAA, 681 F.3d at 549
    . The statutes
    at issue in this case do not prevent anyone from speaking or impose ceilings
    on campaign-related activities. See 
    RTAA, 681 F.3d at 554
    (“In contrast, [the
    regulation] does not restrain speech; it only implicates the requirement for
    disclosing specified information.” (emphasis in original)). Accordingly, we
    apply exacting scrutiny to determine whether the statutes implicating
    Arizona’s registration and disclosure requirements are constitutional.
    B.     A.R.S. § 16-901.01(A)(2)(a) and Disclosure Requirements
    ¶35           CJF challenges on an as-applied and facial basis the
    constitutionality of A.R.S. § 16-901.01(A)(2)(a) under the United States and
    Arizona constitutions.15 CJF maintains subpart (a) of § 16-901.01(A)(2) is
    both overbroad and vague, and impermissibly chills speech.16 We disagree.
    15      Both the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and
    Article 2, Section 6, of the Arizona Constitution protect speech from
    government abridgment. The First Amendment restrains government
    interference with speech rights, whereas the Arizona Constitution
    guarantees each individual’s right to speak freely. State v. Stummer, 
    219 Ariz. 137
    , 142, ¶ 14, 
    194 P.3d 1043
    , 1048 (2008). Although noting that our
    supreme court has stated “Article 2, Section 6 has ‘greater scope than the
    first amendment,’” 
    id. at 143,
    17, 194 P.3d at 1049
    (quoting Mountain States
    Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, 
    160 Ariz. 350
    , 354, 
    773 P.2d 455
    , 459
    (1989)), CJF provides no argument that our analysis of the issues presented
    here under the Arizona Constitution should differ from that used by courts
    under the United States Constitution.
    16     A law is facially overbroad under the First Amendment if “a
    substantial number of its applications are unconstitutional, judged in
    relation to the statute’s plainly legitimate sweep.” United States v. Stevens,
    16
    CJF v. ARIZONA et al.
    Opinion of the Court
    1.      Overbreadth
    ¶36           Relying on Colorado Ethics Watch (“CEW”) v. Senate Majority
    Fund, LLC, 
    269 P.3d 1248
    (Colo. 2012), CJF suggests express advocacy
    cannot permissibly extend beyond the Buckley “magic words” or
    substantially similar synonyms, as codified in subsection (A)(1) of A.R.S.
    § 16-901.01. See 
    CEW, 269 P.3d at 1255-57
    . Recent Supreme Court and
    federal appellate court decisions, however, have upheld an approach to
    defining express advocacy not only in terms of Buckley’s “magic words”
    and substantially similar synonyms as recognized in subsection (A)(1), but
    also their “functional equivalent,” as provided in subpart (a) of subsection
    (A)(2). See Free 
    Speech, 720 F.3d at 794
    (citing 
    RTAA, 681 F.3d at 550
    ).
    ¶37           In McConnell, the Supreme Court considered a facial
    overbreadth challenge to Title II, § 201, of the BCRA, which included a
    provision defining express advocacy for purposes of electioneering
    
    communications. 540 U.S. at 190-91
    . In rejecting the challenge, the Court
    noted Buckley‘s narrow construction of the Federal Election Campaign Act
    of 1971 to require express advocacy “was a function of the vagueness of the
    [original] statutory definition of ‘expenditure,’ not an absolute First
    Amendment imperative.” Free 
    Speech, 720 F.3d at 794
    (bracketed portion
    omitted from original) (quoting 
    RTAA, 681 F.3d at 550
    (citing 
    McConnell, 540 U.S. at 191
    –92)). Consequently, the Court held “Congress could
    permissibly regulate not only communications containing the ‘magic
    words’ of Buckley, but also communications that were ‘the functional
    equivalent’ of express advocacy.” 
    Id. at 795
    (quoting 
    RTAA, 681 F.3d at 550
    -
    51 (citing 
    McConnell, 540 U.S. at 193
    )).17
    
    559 U.S. 460
    , 473 (2010) (quoting Wash. State Grange v. Wash. State Republican
    Party, 
    552 U.S. 442
    , 449 n.6 (2008)).
    17     In his dissent in McConnell, Justice Thomas noted that the majority
    opinion “overturned” all Court of Appeals decisions that had interpreted
    Buckley as creating a constitutionally mandated line, and the only express
    advocacy decision McConnell possibly did not cast into doubt was 
    Furgatch. 540 U.S. at 278
    n.11 (Thomas, J., dissenting). Furgatch rejected Buckley‘s
    “magic words” test, and inspired the federal test for express advocacy
    codified at 11 C.F.R. § 100.22(b). Paul S. Ryan, Wisconsin Right to Life and the
    Resurrection of Furgatch, 19 Stan. L. & Pol’y Rev. 130, 140, 159 (2008)
    (surmising that “the 11 C.F.R. § 100.22(b) Furgatch-like standard for
    defining express advocacy is on solid legal ground” after WRTL).
    17
    CJF v. ARIZONA et al.
    Opinion of the Court
    ¶38           In WRTL, the Court adopted a “functional equivalent” test.
    See Free 
    Speech, 720 F.3d at 795
    (citing 
    WRTL, 551 U.S. at 474
    n.7; 
    RTAA, 681 F.3d at 552
    ). The Court’s controlling opinion held “a court should find that
    an ad is the functional equivalent of express advocacy only if the ad is
    susceptible of no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote
    for or against a specific candidate.” 
    WRTL, 551 U.S. at 469
    –70. This test
    closely correlates to the test set forth in A.R.S. § 16-901.01(A)(2)(a), which
    provides that a communication “expressly advocates” if it “can have no
    reasonable meaning other than to advocate the election or defeat of the
    candidate(s).” See Free 
    Speech, 720 F.3d at 795
    (comparing the WRTL test to
    11 C.F.R. § 100.22(b), which provides that a communication expressly
    advocates if it “could only be interpreted by a reasonable person as
    containing advocacy of the election or defeat of one or more clearly
    identified candidate(s)”). The test provided in A.R.S. § 16-901.01(A)(2)(a) is
    certainly no broader than WRTL’s functional equivalent test. See id.; see also
    
    RTAA, 681 F.3d at 552
    (refuting a vagueness challenge to 11 C.F.R. §
    100.22(b)).
    ¶39            Citizens United reaffirmed the WRTL functional equivalent
    test’s constitutionality and provided further support for the use of such a
    test to define express advocacy. See Free 
    Speech, 720 F.3d at 795
    . In Citizens
    United, the Supreme Court applied the WRTL test to determine whether the
    communication at issue (a film released by Citizens United entitled Hillary:
    The Movie) would be prohibited by the corporate funding restrictions set
    forth in Title II of the 
    BCRA. 558 U.S. at 324-26
    . The Court ultimately
    concluded that, “[u]nder the standard stated in McConnell and further
    elaborated in WRTL, the film qualifies as the functional equivalent of
    express advocacy.” 
    Id. at 326.
    The Court also upheld federal disclaimer
    and      disclosure     requirements      applicable     to    “electioneering
    communications,” 
    id. at 366-72,
    while “reject[ing] Citizens United’s
    contention that the disclosure requirements must be limited to speech that
    is the functional equivalent of express advocacy.” 
    Id. at 369.
    Thus, in
    addressing the permissible scope of disclosure requirements, the Court not
    only rejected the “magic words” standard urged here by CJF, but also found
    “disclosure requirements could extend beyond speech that is the
    ‘functional equivalent of express advocacy’ to address even ads that ‘only
    pertain to a commercial transaction.’” Free 
    Speech, 720 F.3d at 795
    (quoting
    Citizens 
    United, 558 U.S. at 369
    ). Contrary to CJF’s assertions, Citizens United
    supports the use of a functional equivalent test in defining “express
    advocacy.” See id.; 
    RTAA, 681 F.3d at 551
    . “If mandatory disclosure
    requirements are permissible when applied to ads that merely mention a []
    candidate, then applying the same burden to ads that go further and are the
    functional equivalent of express advocacy cannot automatically be
    18
    CJF v. ARIZONA et al.
    Opinion of the Court
    impermissible.” 
    RTAA, 681 F.3d at 552
    (emphasis in original), quoted in Free
    
    Speech, 720 F.3d at 795
    . As a result, Citizens United directly contradicts CJF’s
    argument that the definition of express advocacy set forth in subpart (a) of
    A.R.S. § 16-901.01(A)(2) is overly broad with respect to disclosure
    requirements.
    ¶40            CJF’s reliance on Federal Election Commission v. Massachusetts
    Citizens for Life, Inc. (“MCFL”), 
    479 U.S. 238
    (1986), is also unavailing. In
    MCFL, the Supreme Court held that a section of the Federal Election
    Campaign Act prohibiting direct expenditure of corporate funds in
    connection with any federal election violated the First Amendment as
    applied to a nonprofit corporation that published a newsletter urging
    readers to vote “pro-life” and listing approximately 400 candidates for state
    and federal office in Massachusetts who either supported or opposed the
    corporation’s views. 
    Id. at 241-45,
    263-65. CJF speculates the position
    advocated by MCAO in this case (treating CJF’s advertisement as express
    advocacy subject to Arizona’s disclosure requirements) could force issue
    advocacy groups such as MCFL to register as political committees and be
    subject to Arizona’s disclosure requirements by treating their
    communications as express advocacy.
    ¶41           MCFL involved whether a nonprofit advocacy group that was
    engaged in express advocacy could raise and spend general fund money
    directly on an election. 
    Id. at 249-65.
    Thus, it was a case challenging a
    restriction on independent spending as applied to MCFL, see 
    id. at 263-64,
    not a case directly challenging the constitutionality of disclosure laws, and
    we see no reason to speculate on the potential overbreadth of A.R.S. § 16-
    901.01(A)(2)(a) on an as-applied basis to groups other than CJF. Moreover,
    to the extent the issue is properly before us, A.R.S. § 16-901.01(B) would
    appear to address a situation such as that posed by CJF:
    A communication within the scope of subsection A,
    paragraph 2 shall not be considered as one that expressly
    advocates merely because it presents information about the
    voting record or position on a campaign issue of three or more
    candidates, so long as it is not made in coordination with a
    candidate, political party, agent of the candidate or party or a
    19
    CJF v. ARIZONA et al.
    Opinion of the Court
    person who is coordinating with a candidate or candidate’s
    agent.[18]
    ¶42          Consequently, under A.R.S. § 16-901.01(B), a group such as
    MCFL, which is engaged in independent communications about the voting
    record or position on a campaign issue of three or more candidates, is not
    necessarily considered to be one that expressly advocates, even if its
    communication falls within the scope of A.R.S. § 16-901.01(A)(2).
    2.     Vagueness
    ¶43            We also reject CJF’s argument that A.R.S. § 16-901.01(A)(2)(a)
    is impermissibly vague. As the Fourth Circuit noted when considering the
    propriety of 11 C.F.R. § 100.22(b), “cases that fall close to the line will
    inevitably arise when applying [the statute]. This kind of difficulty is
    simply inherent in any kind of standards-based test.” 
    RTAA, 681 F.3d at 554
    (citing United States v. Williams, 
    553 U.S. 285
    , 306 (2008) (“Close cases
    can be imagined under virtually any statute. The problem that poses is
    [not] addressed . . . by the doctrine of vagueness . . . .”); United States v.
    Wurzbach, 
    280 U.S. 396
    , 399 (1930) (“Wherever the law draws a line there
    will be cases very near each other on opposite sides.”)); accord Nat’l Org. for
    Marriage, Inc. v. Roberts, 
    753 F. Supp. 2d 1217
    , 1221 (N.D. Fla. 2010) (“The
    fact that ‘it may be difficult in some cases to determine whether these clear
    requirements have been met’ does not mean that the statute is void for
    vagueness.” (quoting 
    Williams, 553 U.S. at 306
    )).
    ¶44            Additionally, the mere fact that A.R.S. § 16-901.01(A)(2)(a)
    identifies certain factors for consideration, most specifically the “timing of
    the communication,” does not mean it is inconsistent with WRTL. See
    
    RTAA, 681 F.3d at 554
    (examining 11 C.F.R. § 100.22(b)’s “proximity to the
    election” language in light of WRTL). WRTL “simply held that the timing
    of speech cannot be used as a proxy for a speaker’s intent.” 
    Id. (citing WRTL,
    551 U.S. at 472 (“To the extent th[e] evidence [regarding the timing
    of WRTL’s ads] goes to WRTL’s subjective intent, it is again irrelevant.”)).
    Under both WRTL and subpart (a) of § 16-901.01(A)(2), subjective intent is
    not a consideration, and as the Supreme Court noted in WRTL, by virtue of
    their time-sensitive statutory definition, “[e]very ad covered by [the
    electioneering communication regulation] will . . . air just before a primary
    or general election.” 
    Id. (citing WRTL,
    551 U.S. at 472 (emphasis in
    18     In 2012, the legislature amended subsection (B) of A.R.S. § 16-901.01.
    See 2012 Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch. 257, § 1 (2nd Reg. Sess.). We quote the current
    version of the statute, as the amendments are immaterial to our analysis.
    20
    CJF v. ARIZONA et al.
    Opinion of the Court
    original)). Consequently, although “considering timing with respect to
    electioneering communications would prove redundant, a limited
    reference to whether, for example, an ad airs in an election year, would
    actually help limit the number of communications that are considered
    independent expenditures.” 
    Id. The same
    is true regarding A.R.S. § 16-
    901.01(A)(2)(a).
    3.     Potential Chilling Effect
    ¶45            CJF maintains that the possibility citizens or groups might
    have to register as a political committee and disclose their largest donors
    could have an impermissible chilling effect on speech. Although the
    potential exists for disclosure requirements to have an unconstitutional
    chilling effect on speech if a “reasonable probability” exists an organization
    or its members may face threats, harassment, or reprisals due to disclosure,
    see 
    McConnell, 540 U.S. at 197-98
    ; Citizens 
    United, 558 U.S. at 370
    , CJF has
    identified no instance of harassment or retaliation involving CJF or its
    donors, despite the fact that CJF discloses contributor information through
    reports filed with the Internal Revenue Service. Additionally, CJF has not
    presented evidence that it was unfairly targeted by MCAO, or that MCAO
    or the ALJ had an inherent bias against CJF.19
    ¶46          CJF also notes that violations of Arizona’s disclosure laws
    may result in civil or even criminal penalties. See generally A.R.S. §§ 16-
    904(K), -919(D)-(E), -924(B). CJF points to no evidence that any potential
    penalties have chilled its speech. It appears the statutes implicated in this
    19     CJF speculates that § 16-901.01(A)(2)(a) has been “unfairly and
    unconstitutionally applied to CJF because . . . MCAO and the ALJ’s specific
    reference to CJF’s largest contributor (DAGA) demonstrates an inherent
    bias and presumption that any group funded by Democrats must
    necessarily be engaging in express advocacy for the defeat of a Republican.”
    The ALJ’s finding that CJF’s primary financial contributor is the Democratic
    Attorneys General Association was one of many findings of fact made by
    the ALJ. At most, the finding lent support to the ALJ’s conclusion that “CJF
    is a political committee, as defined by A.R.S. § 16-901(19), because of its
    stated purpose ‘of accepting donations in order to make disbursements . . .
    to indirectly influence the selection, nomination, election, or appointment
    of individuals to state or local public office.’” We disagree that the ALJ’s
    finding demonstrated an inherent bias against CJF on the part of either
    MCAO or the ALJ or in any way infringed on CJF’s ability to speak.
    21
    CJF v. ARIZONA et al.
    Opinion of the Court
    case only involve civil penalties, and much of any speculative chilling effect
    is addressed by our analysis finding § 16-901.01(A)(2)(a) is neither
    overbroad nor vague.20
    ¶47            In sum, CJF has failed to show Arizona’s disclosure laws are
    unconstitutional as applied to CJF or that any, much less a substantial
    number, of the applications of the disclosure laws are unconstitutional. See
    
    Stevens, 559 U.S. at 473
    ; see also Ctr. for Individual Freedom v. Madigan, 
    697 F.3d 464
    , 470 n.1 (7th Cir. 2012) (recognizing numerous decisions by federal
    courts of appeals upholding federal and state disclosure regulations against
    facial attacks), aff’g 
    735 F. Supp. 2d 994
    (N.D. Ill. 2010). Accordingly, we
    find no constitutional infirmity in Arizona’s disclosure requirements,
    including A.R.S. § 16-901.01(A)(2)(a), both facially and as applied to CJF.
    4.     Purpose of Disclosure
    ¶48            The purpose of a registration requirement is to ensure
    disclosure. See, e.g., 
    Madigan, 735 F. Supp. 2d at 1000
    (equating “election-
    law disclosure requirements” discussed in Citizens United with
    “registration requirements, including related reporting, recordkeeping, and
    disclosure requirements”). Disclosure serves “substantial governmental
    interests,” including (1) providing voters with information to aid them in
    evaluating candidates and the sources of a candidate’s support, (2)
    deterring actual corruption and avoiding the appearance of corruption by
    exposing large contributions and expenditures to public light, and (3)
    providing a means of gathering the data necessary to detect violators.
    
    Buckley, 424 U.S. at 67-68
    ; accord 
    McConnell, 540 U.S. at 196
    (acknowledging
    Buckley and recognizing the “important state interests” served by
    disclosure, including “providing the electorate with information, deterring
    actual corruption and avoiding any appearance thereof, and gathering the
    data necessary to enforce more substantive electioneering restrictions”);
    Citizens 
    United, 558 U.S. at 371
    (“The First Amendment protects political
    speech; and disclosure permits citizens . . . to react to the speech . . . in a
    proper way. This transparency enables the electorate to make informed
    decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages.”); see
    also Human Life of 
    Washington, 624 F.3d at 1005-06
    (recognizing the “vital
    provision of information” to voters through disclosure laws “repeatedly
    has been recognized as a sufficiently important, if not compelling,
    governmental interest”). The requirement of disclosure in this case is
    20     We also note that a party such as CJF can request assistance from the
    Secretary of State in complying with its reporting requirements.
    22
    CJF v. ARIZONA et al.
    Opinion of the Court
    substantially related to a sufficiently important governmental interest. See
    Citizens 
    United, 558 U.S. at 366
    .
    III.   Attorneys’ Fees
    ¶49            Citing A.R.S. §§ 12-348 and 12-349, CJF requests an award of
    its costs and attorneys’ fees associated with the preparation of its answering
    briefs in response to the MCAO and amicus curiae brief of the Citizens
    Clean Elections Commission (“CCEC”). CJF is not the prevailing party, and
    the positions set forth in the briefs of MCAO and CCEC were reasonable;
    accordingly, CJF’s request is denied.
    CONCLUSION
    ¶50           We vacate the portion of the superior court’s judgment
    holding unconstitutional A.R.S. § 16-901.01(A)(1) and now-repealed
    subpart (b) of § 16-901.01(A)(2) , and reverse the remainder of the superior
    court’s judgment, including its award of costs and attorneys’ fees to CJF.
    Further, we reinstate the Final Decision of the Maricopa County Attorney
    requiring CJF to register as a political committee and comply with the
    reporting requirements of Arizona’s campaign finance laws.
    :gsh
    23