Doug Lair v. Jonathan Motl
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 20813
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Montana adopted Initiative 118 in 1994 (I-118), imposing lower per‑election contribution limits on individuals and higher aggregate limits for political parties; limits later amended and indexed to inflation.
- Plaintiffs challenged Montana Code Ann. § 13‑37‑216 as violating the First Amendment; the district court struck the limits down under a post‑Randall analysis.
- The Ninth Circuit previously upheld Montana’s limits in Montana Right to Life Ass’n v. Eddleman, applying the Buckley framework: (1) valid important state interest and (2) ‘‘closely drawn’’ tailoring.
- Subsequent Supreme Court decisions (Randall, Citizens United, McCutcheon) narrowed and complicated the applicable tests, focusing the valid interest on preventing quid pro quo corruption or its appearance and highlighting tailoring concerns (e.g., ‘‘danger signs’’ in Randall).
- On remand, the district court found Montana’s evidence insufficient to show a non‑illusory risk of quid pro quo corruption and concluded limits unduly burden speech; the Ninth Circuit reverses, finding Montana met the threshold interest and that the limits are closely drawn.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Montana showed a valid important state interest (quid pro quo corruption or its appearance) to justify any contribution limits | Plaintiffs contend Montana’s evidence is insufficient—no completed quid pro quo exchanges and alleged incidents show rejected offers or mere access/influence | Montana argues record shows non‑illusory risk: contemporaneous evidence of attempts/offers to buy influence, state court findings of improper conduct, and official testimony | Held: Montana satisfied the low ‘‘more than mere conjecture’’ evidentiary threshold; risk of quid pro quo corruption/appearance is supported by the record |
| Whether the limits are "closely drawn" (tailoring) to the anti‑corruption interest | Limits are overly restrictive, motivated by impermissible goals (leveling influence), and unnecessarily low to permit effective campaigning | Limits target high‑end direct contributions, permit affiliation by other means, apply per election, give parties larger aggregate ability, and are reasonable given Montana’s low campaign costs | Held: Limits are closely drawn—narrowly focused, leave affiliation intact, and allow candidates (incumbent and challenger) to campaign effectively |
| Whether Randall’s plurality test displaces Eddleman (and applicable analysis) | Plaintiffs rely on Randall’s ‘‘danger signs’’ and multifactor tailoring test to invalidate limits | Montana and majority treat Eddleman as controlling or conclude that, even under Randall’s test, Montana’s limits pass (no danger signs apply) | Held: Either under Eddleman or Randall, Montana’s limits survive; Randall would not change the result because limits avoid the plurality’s ‘‘danger signs’’ |
| Proper evidentiary burden to justify limits (must show completed quid pro quo?) | Plaintiffs (and dissent) read Citizens United and McCutcheon to require stronger proof—actual or apparent completed quid pro quo, not mere offers or access | Majority: precedent requires only that risk/appearance be more than mere conjecture; no need to prove completed exchanges | Held: State need only show a non‑illusory risk or appearance of quid pro quo corruption; Montana met that burden |
Key Cases Cited
- Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (establishes contribution regulation framework and deference to anti‑corruption objectives)
- Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC, 528 U.S. 377 (upholds contribution limits; applies ‘‘more than mere conjecture’’ evidentiary standard)
- Randall v. Sorrell, 548 U.S. 230 (plurality) (articulates ‘‘danger signs’’ and multifactor tailoring inquiry for low limits)
- Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (limits state interests justifying restriction to quid pro quo corruption/appearance)
- McCutcheon v. FEC, 572 U.S. 185 (reaffirms quid pro quo focus and limits on permissible anti‑corruption justifications)
- Montana Right to Life Ass’n v. Eddleman, 343 F.3d 1085 (9th Cir. 2003) (Ninth Circuit upheld Montana’s limits under Buckley framework)
- Lair v. Bullock, 798 F.3d 736 (9th Cir. 2015) (Ninth Circuit decision addressing interplay of Eddleman and Randall; remanded and further considered tailoring and evidentiary issues)