Alabama Democratic Conference v. Attorney General, State of Alabama
541 F. App'x 931
11th Cir.2013Background
- ADC (Alabama Democratic Conference), a PAC, sued Alabama officials to enjoin Ala. Code § 17-5-15(b), which bans all transfers of funds between PACs and similar entities. ADC challenged the statute as-applied, not facially.
- ADC proposed to receive PAC-to-PAC transfers into a segregated bank account used only for independent expenditures and argued Citizens United protects such transfers because independent expenditures cannot give rise to corruption.
- The district court granted partial summary judgment for ADC, enjoining enforcement of the ban as to funds used for independent expenditures.
- The State appealed, arguing the ban serves important interests in preventing corruption and ensuring transparency and that ADC’s hybrid status (making both independent expenditures and contributions) allows corruption concerns to persist despite segregated accounts.
- The Eleventh Circuit reviewed de novo, found genuine factual disputes about whether segregated accounts and ADC’s relationships eliminate corruption concerns, vacated the district court’s summary judgment, and remanded for further factfinding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 17-5-15(b) violates the First Amendment as-applied to PAC-to-PAC transfers used solely for independent expenditures | ADC: Citizens United bars regulation of independent expenditures and thus bars regulating transfers used only for independent expenditures into segregated accounts | State: Hybrid organizations that also make contributions can use PAC-to-PAC transfers to evade disclosure/limits and enable corruption; segregated accounts may be insufficient | The court held summary judgment for ADC was improper because factual disputes exist about whether ADC’s structure eliminates corruption/appearance concerns; remanded for factfinding |
| Whether preventing corruption/appearance of corruption is a sufficiently important interest to justify the ban | ADC: Citizens United said independent expenditures do not give rise to corruption, so the anti-corruption interest cannot justify banning transfers used for independent expenditures | State: Preventing corruption/appearance is a compelling interest; evidence suggests PAC-to-PAC transfers have facilitated circumvention and corruption | Court: Anti-corruption interest can be sufficient here; cannot be resolved as a matter of law at summary judgment given the record |
| Whether segregated bank accounts are an adequate, less-restrictive alternative | ADC: Separate accounts for independent expenditures eliminate corruption concerns and are feasible | State: Same-entity control undermines segregation; transfers could be fungible and used to funnel funds to candidates | Court: Adequacy of segregated-account remedy raises factual issues not resolved on this record |
| Whether Citizens United requires invalidation of contribution limits for funds used for independent expenditures when recipient also makes contributions | ADC: Citizens United’s protection of independent expenditures extends to transfers funding them | State: Citizens United does not control where recipient also makes contributions; coordinated activity raises corruption risks | Court: Citizens United does not automatically render the transfer ban unconstitutional here; mixed law-and-fact questions preclude summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010) (independent expenditures cannot be limited because they do not give rise to corruption)
- Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) (contribution limits implicate First Amendment and survive only if closely drawn to a sufficiently important interest)
- McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93 (2003) (upheld disclosure and certain restrictions based on anti-corruption/party-affiliation rationale)
- Colo. Republican Fed. Campaign Comm. v. FEC, 518 U.S. 604 (1996) (distinguishes coordinated expenditures from truly independent expenditures)
- SpeechNow.org v. FEC, 599 F.3d 686 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (independence of expenditures was central to Citizens United reasoning)
- FEC v. Nat’l Conservative Political Action Comm., 470 U.S. 480 (1985) (preventing corruption/appearance of corruption is the only recognized government interest to justify contribution limits)
- Davis v. FEC, 554 U.S. 724 (2008) (reiterates that contribution limits must be closely drawn to prevent corruption or its appearance)