Van Hollen’s lawyer, Catherine Carroll of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, told the D.C. Circuit that the “for the purpose of” language provided a “clear road map” for donors to avoid public disclosure—when they give money, do it silently.
Carroll bore the brunt of questioning on Tuesday. Judge A. Raymond Randolph pressed Carroll about whether there was any evidence that similar “for the purpose of” language had led to “mass evasion” of reporting requirements for donations for other types of political speech. Carroll said concerns had been raised about the issue over the years.
Randolph was also concerned about what would happen to anonymous donations if the narrower “purpose” language was removed. Would anonymous speech be prohibited, he asked Carroll. Carroll said she wasn’t sure that was the case.