Indeed, the Court has "repeatedly found that compelled disclosure, in itself, can seriously infringe on privacy of association and belief guaranteed by the First Amendment."

—dealt with provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act ("FECA") that required political committees to register, keep detailed records of both contributions and expenditures, and file detailed quarterly reports—much like the requirements imposed upon groups and individuals in the instant case.

That the provision is so unrelated to this asserted purpose suggests that the Government's interest is not substantial.

The Supreme Court has established that campaign contribution limits "impinge on the protected freedoms of expression and association."

—the United States Supreme Court held that although the limitations on political campaign contributions in the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 were generally constitutional, the Act's limitation on election expenditures violated contributor's First Amendment right to political expression.

But as the Supreme Court stated in one of the most important sentences in First Amendment history, "the concept that government may restrict the speech of some elements of our society in order to enhance the relative voice of others is wholly foreign to the First Amendment."

"Closely drawn" scrutiny, as the Court now calls it, requires that "the [government] demonstrate [] a sufficiently important interest and employ [] means closely drawn to avoid unnecessary abridgment" of First Amendment rights.

This is so because adjudicatory power over public rights can be evidence of the "exercis [e][of] significant authority pursuant to the laws of the United States."

Citing previous opinions, the Court held that expenditures cannot be restricted based on the government's interest in curbing corruption because the "absence of prearrangement and coordination... alleviates the danger that expenditures will be given as a quid pro quo for improper commitments from the candidate."

The FCC's delegated responsibility to foster a robust forum for national debate is unique in administrative law and essential to the vibrancy of our deliberative democracy.