No on E v. Chiu

San Francisco requires political committees to disclose on the face of their advertisements not just their five largest donors, but the largest donors to their largest donors.  The Ninth Circuit denied a preliminary injunction against the law, applying “exacting scrutiny.” But as we argue in our amicus brief on behalf of professors David Primo and Jeffrey Milyo, the best available social science suggests that disclosure requirements like this provide no meaningful public benefits that would justify their costs. We urge the Court to grant certiorari and make clear that “exacting scrutiny,” like all forms of intermediate scrutiny, is a meaningful standard that requires the government to come forward with real evidence to justify its laws.