Family Pac v. Rob McKenna
685 F.3d 800
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Family PAC challenged three Washington election-law provisions as applied to ballot measure committees.
- Disclosures: RCW 42.17.090 and WAC 390-16-034 require reporting names, addresses, and, for larger contributors, employer and occupation.
- Contribution cap: RCW 42.17.105(8) bars contributions over 5,000 within 21 days of a general election.
- District court held the disclosure requirements survived exacting scrutiny; the 21-day limit was unconstitutional as applied to ballot measures.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed, upholding the disclosures as substantially related to informing voters, and invalidating the 21-day limit as applied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do disclosures survive exacting scrutiny? | Family PAC argues disclosures are not substantially related to an important interest. | State contends disclosures support informing voters and are substantially related to that interest. | Yes; disclosures are substantially related to an important governmental interest. |
| Are the $25 and $100 disclosure thresholds closely drawn? | Small-contributor reporting thresholds are too low to be narrowly tailored. | Thresholds are within a permissible range and provide useful information without excessive burden. | Yes; thresholds survive exacting scrutiny as substantially related. |
| Is the 21-day $5,000 contribution limit closely drawn for ballot measures? | Temporal contribution limit is too restrictive and not necessary to inform voters. | Temporal limit ensures timely disclosure before elections. | No; § 42.17.105(8) is not closely drawn and is unconstitutional as applied to ballot measure committees. |
Key Cases Cited
- Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1976) (contribution limits not subject to strict scrutiny; standards for closely drawn limits)
- Citizens Against Rent Control v. City of Berkeley, 454 U.S. 290 (U.S. 1981) (temporal contribution limits and First Amendment burdens)
- Doe v. Reed, 130 S. Ct. 2811 (U.S. 2010) (as-applied challenges to refererendum petition disclosures; modest burden generally)
- Canyon Ferry Rd. Baptist Church of E. Helena, Inc. v. Unsworth, 556 F.3d 1021 (9th Cir. 2009) (thresholds and reporting burdens; informational value of disclosure)
- Human Life of Wash. Inc. v. Brumsickle, 624 F.3d 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (informational interest in ballot measure disclosures; exacting scrutiny standard)
- Randolph v. Cal. Pro-Life Council, 507 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2007) (occupational/employer reporting and disclosure thresholds)
- Cal. Pro-Life Council, Inc. v. Getman, 328 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. 2003) (state disclosure requirements for political committees)
- Cal. Pro-Life Council, Inc. v. Randolph, 507 F.3d 1179 (9th Cir. 2007) (support for disclosure thresholds and informational interest)
- Sampson v. Buescher, 625 F.3d 1247 (10th Cir. 2010) (informational interest of ballot measure disclosure; circuit discussion guiding standard)
- North Carolina Right to Life, Inc. v. Bartlett, 168 F.3d 705 (4th Cir. 1999) (temporal restrictions and informational interests in political speech)
- Thalheimer v. City of San Diego, 645 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir. 2011) (analysis of narrowly tailored temporal campaign restrictions)
- Gable v. Patton, 142 F.3d 940 (6th Cir. 1998) (temporal restrictions tied to public funding context)