19 It is true McConnell upheld, against an equal protection challenge, a provision of BCRA regulating political parties. But regulation of political parties is not McConnell’s theme. The Court broadly recognized and deferred to governmental interests in preventing corruption, the appearance of corruption, and circumvention of election regulations. McConnell, 540 U.S. at 136–37, 143–45, 152–53. Arguably, this expansive corruption/circumvention/conduit rationale is broad enough to encompass some limits on independent expenditure committees, particularly for those political committees with a self-proclaimed electoral mission. See Briffault, 73 GEO. WASH. L. REV. at 986–87; Hasen, 153 U. PA. L. REV. at 67–68. EMILY’s List is a multicandidate political committee that has as its primary purpose electing ideologically compatible candidates, EMILY’s List Br. at 3. 13 pronouncement on constitutional issues, but also from premature interpretations of statutes in areas where their constitutional application might be cloudy.” Wash. State Grange v. Wash. State Republican Party, 128 S. Ct. 1184, 1190–91 (2008). As a rule, a law is facially repugnant only if it “is unconstitutional in all of its applications,” but there is a narrow First Amendment exception where “a law may be overturned [if] a substantial number of its applications are unconstitutional, judged in relation to the statute’s plainly legitimate sweep,” id. at 1191 n.6. Those seeking this “strong medicine,” id., however, face a “heavy burden,” McConnell, 540 U.S. at 207. 13 In defining its mission, EMILY’s List explains that it “is committed to a three-pronged strategy to elect pro-choice Democratic women: recruiting and funding viable women candidates; helping them build and run effective campaign organizations; and mobilizing women voters to help elect progressive candidates across the nation.” EMILY’s List, Our Mission, http://emilyslist.org/about/mission/ (last visited Aug. 28, 2009).