In Brief – The Brennan Center for Justice has submitted an amicus brief supporting the District Court decision to reject the constitutional challenge of Plaintiffs to contribution limits for organizations whose major purpose is the election or defeat of candidates for federal office.
Argument Presented – The Brennan Center argues that the District Court correctly applied both long-standing Supreme Court precedent, and the constitutional principles enunciated in those cases, to the circumstances and proposed operational structure of the Plaintiffs’ organization. Moreover, the District Court gave appropriate recognition to the strong governmental interest in preventing corruption and the appearance of corruption underlying the statutory and regulatory scheme challenged by the Plaintiffs; courts have consistently upheld this strong anti-corruption interest supporting regulation in this constitutionally sensitive area.
Procedural History – On July 11, 2008 the District of Columbia District Court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs appealed and simultaneously pursued the procedure set forth in 2 U.S.C. § 437h, under which constitutional questions presented would be certified to the en ban Court of Appeal, following discovery and findings of fact.
Summary of Argument – The District Court was correct in rejecting the constitutional challenge of Plaintiffs-Appellants (“Plaintiffs”) to contribution limits for organizations whose major purpose is the election or defeat of candidates for federal office. The District Court correctly applied both long-standing Supreme Court precedent, and the constitutional principles enunciated in those cases, to the circumstances and proposed operational structure of the Plaintiffs’ organization. Moreover, the District Court gave appropriate recognition to the strong governmental interest in preventing corruption and the appearance of corruption underlying the statutory and regulatory scheme challenged by the Plaintiffs; courts have consistently upheld this strong anti-corruption interest supporting regulation in this constitutionally sensitive area.
In this case, Plaintiffs assert that they intend to run advertisements calling for the election and defeat of candidates paid for exclusively by private donations from individuals, not corporations, labor unions, or anyone else not permitted to contribute to candidates for federal election. (Pl. Br. at 6–7). Plaintiffs assert that any limitations on contributions to an organization that would engage only in independent expenditures are unconstitutional. (Id. at 21–41). In making this argument, however, Plaintiffs confuse and conflate the governing constitutional principles of this area of the law by equating limits on the receipts of contributions with limits on spending by the proposed organization, in contravention of longstanding Supreme Court precedents that differentiate between the First Amendment status of contributions and expenditures in connection with electoral activity. Plaintiffs’ argument mistakes two fundamental premises of the previous Supreme Court decisions. First, Plaintiffs wrongly assume that the associational rights at issue in the regulation of contributions to organizations are identical to the freedom of speech concerns at issue in the regulation of spending. Second, Plaintiffs also mistakenly assume that the governmental interest behind regulation of contributions is equivalent to, and no stronger than, the governmental interest in regulating the spending and speech itself. (E.g., Pl. Br. at 27–28.) But the record before this Court, the extensive legislative and judicial findings underlying previous restrictions on contributions, and the well-documented real world experience of past election cycles demonstrate that Congress, the FEC, and the courts have identified serious issues of corruption and the appearance of corruption that would result from potentially unlimited contributions expressly directed at determining the outcome of federal elections. Under controlling Supreme Court cases, these anti-corruption interests amply support the constitutionality of the portion of the campaign finance regulatory framework challenged in this litigation. Overturning campaign finance laws that regulate organizations whose major purpose is to influence federal elections would lead to circumvention of contribution limits that apply to candidates and political parties and would frustrate Congress’ important anti-corruption goals.
Devereux Chatillon, John R. Feore III, Belinda L Harrison, Howard R. Rubin, Nicholas Tardif and Michael A. Zolandz of Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP are counsel on the brief.