soapbox

Dickranian v. City of Los Angeles, No. 2:12-cv-05145-ODW-SS (C.D. Cal.), on appeal No. 12-56844 (9th Cir.) Case Description: On June 13, 2013, plaintiff Laurel Dickranian filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California challenging Los Angeles disclaimer and disclosure requirements as unconstitutional. Dickranian spent nearly $8,000 sending letters to more than 17,000 Los Angeles voters urging them to elect a particular candidate for the office of City Attorney. The City’s law requires those making independent expenditures in city candidate or ballot measure elections to file a campaign finance report and a copy of the communication. The district court summarily dismissed Dickranian’s complaint and upheld the City’s disclosure law. Case Status: Dickranian appealed the district court’s dismissal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On November 7, 2014, the parties notified the Ninth Circuit that they had settled the case. CLC Position/Involvement: The CLC filed an amicus brief in support of the City’s law with the Ninth Circuit on June 24, 2013.
http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/news/press-releases/new-litigation-summary-clc-reveals-ongoing-flood-challenges-campaign-finance

The lower court opinion is clearly erroneous for the usual reasons.
https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/cacdce/2:2012cv05145/534612/15

I wonder if anyone knows the terms of the Dickranian settlment.