ATLANTA — Two organizations — New Georgia Project, Inc. and New Georgia Project Action Fund, Inc. — have come to the fore in Georgia.

Let’s call them NGP and NGPAF for short.

Although they’re affiliated with each other, they’re separate legal entities.

NGP is organized under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, so it’s a charity. As such, NGP maintained in the federal-district court in Atlanta that it obeys law banning it “from participating in or intervening in any political campaign on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate.”

Meanwhile, NGPAF is organized under Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code, so it’s a social-welfare organization. As such, NGPAF maintained in the same court that it obeys law under which its “‘political activities’ … may not be ‘its primary activity.'”

ı ı ı

Georgia asserts that under Georgia law, NGP and NGPAF must each be a political-committee-like organization and bear political-committee-like burdens.

However, political speech is at the core of what the First Amendment protects.

The First Amendment boundaries around law triggering political-committee or political-committee-like burdens for those engaging in political speech are easy to understand once you get your head around them.

As this columnist has explained to the Atlanta-based federal-appellate court in NGP and NGPAF’s challenge: Under U.S. Supreme Court case law, “political-committee(-like) burdens can include registration (including, in turn, treasurer designation, bank-account designation, and termination, i.e., deregistration), recordkeeping, extensive reporting, and ongoing reporting. These are ‘onerous’ burdens, particularly–yet not only–when law chills speech, i.e., when speech is ‘simply not worth it.'”

The explanation continues: To protect political speech, the First Amendment permits government to trigger such burdens “only (a) for ‘organizations’ that are ‘under the control of a candidate’ or candidates in their capacities as candidates, or (b) for ‘organizations’ (b)(i) having ‘the major purpose’ of ‘nominat(ing) or elect(ing)’ a candidate or candidates or passing or defeating a ballot measure or ballot measures, and (b)(ii) engaging in more than small-scale speech.”

The record in NGP and NGPAF’s challenge lacks proof that either NGP or NGPAF is such an organization, so government may not trigger such burdens for either.

There’s much more to it than that. For starters, though, it’s that simple.

ı ı ı

Meanwhile, in the federal-appellate court in Washington, D.C., is another organization — American Action Network, or AAN — facing assertions that under federal law it must be a political committee and bear political-committee burdens.

However, the record in the challenge involving AAN, and in two previous challenges involving AAN, lacks proof that AAN is “‘under the control of a candidate’ or candidates in their capacities as candidates,” or has “‘the major purpose’ of ‘nominat(ing) or elect(ing)’ a candidate or candidates or passing or defeating a ballot measure or ballot measures.”

Thus, government may not trigger such burdens for AAN.

Again, there’s much more to it than that. For starters, though, it’s that simple.

ı ı ı

What are NGP, NGPAF, and AAN?

In the federal-appellate court in Atlanta, NGP describes itself as an organization “focused on voter registration and civic engagement, which seeks ‘to build power with and increase the civic participation of … historically marginalized communities through nonpartisan voter registration, organizing, and advocacy on the issues important to (those) communities.”

NGPAF describes itself in the same court as “a separate but affiliated organization whose major purpose is ‘engagement in issue advocacy that increases the civic participation of underrepresented and underserved communities of color in Georgia.”

That doesn’t tell you which side of the political spectrum NGP or NGPAF is on. Nor need it tell you, because it’s irrelevant.

This will tell you though: Its leaders are liberals, proudly and capably so. NGP and NGPAF engage in speech accordingly.

By contrast, AAN, whose federal-appellate brief is forthcoming, has proud and capable conservative leadership. AAN engages in speech accordingly.

That NGP and NGPAF, on the one hand — and AAN on other hand — are on opposite ends of the political spectrum is beyond the point that on these First Amendment issues in their respective courts, they’re on the same side of the legal spectrum.

As they should be.

First Amendment principles apply across the board to all.

The hyperlinks for Dr. Randy Elf’s filed federal-appellate brief supporting NGP and NGPAF and his similar, and practically identical, forthcoming federal-appellate brief supporting AAN–with each brief dedicated to his Wife and their two children in Heaven–are https://works.bepress.com/elf/221 and https://works.bepress.com/elf/222.

COPYRIGHT ç 2023 BY RANDY ELF