13 advertisements out of a soft-money account, even for ads that attack or promote federal candidates. Maj. Op. at 28–29.9 Because EMILY’s List’s actual claims are not bold enough, the court sua sponte spins a more aggressive argument—making its waiver charge all the more curious. Nowhere does any party refer to Justice Blackmun’s separate opinion in California Medical Association v. FEC, 453 U.S. 182 (1981) (“Cal-Med”). Nor does EMILY’s List mention FEC v. National Conservative PAC, 470 U.S. 480 (1985) (“NCPAC”), FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Inc., 479 U.S. 238 (1986) (“MCFL”), or North Carolina Right to Life, Inc. v. Leake, 525 F.3d 274 (4th Cir. 2008)—in other words, the cases upon which the court’s holding depends, see, e.g., Maj. Op. at 11–16, 22–23, 26.10 None of the law review 9 Consistent with its briefing, during oral argument counsel for EMILY’s List was more circumspect than the court is today: The Court: Would your position preclude say regulation of get out the vote drives, or voter registration, or that sort of thing? Do you think that would be beyond the FEC’s purview? EMILY’s List: No, Your Honor, we don’t take that position, we take the position that reasonable regulations to account for the federal election related impact of that activity are permissible. Tr. of Oral Arg. at 9. Cf. Maj. Op. at 27 (“[N]on-profits are constitutionally entitled to pay 100% of the costs of such voter drive activities out of their soft-money accounts.”). 10 In fact, EMILY’s List does not mention Cal-Med until its reply brief, and neither party cites Cal-Med for a proposition integral to