Farris v. Seabrook, 667 F.3d 1051

Washington recalls procedure allows recall for malfeasance/misfeasance/oath violations; recall charges filed with county auditor and ballot synopsis prepared; court hearings determine sufficiency and ballot synopsis adequacy; signatures collected within 180 days if charges sustained; recall results lead to appointment of successor by a designated body; the statute limits contributions to recall committees to $800 (monetary and in-kind) during recall campaigns.
Plaintiffs formed Recall Dale Washam committee to recall Pierce County official Dale Washam; charges approved by Washington Supreme Court Chief; recall proponents had to collect 65,495 signatures for November ballot; recall proceeded with PDC involvement and later charges of excess contributions were considered but not pursued.
PDC issued a notice alleging § 42.17A.405(3) violation for in-kind contributions exceeding $800; charges were withdrawn but PDC stated the limits were applicable.
District court granted a preliminary injunction prohibiting enforcement of the $800 limit during the 2011 recall campaign.
On appeal, plaintiffs challenge the injunction and argue the limit violates First Amendment; appeal addresses mootness and breadth of preliminary injunction; this court reviews for abuse of discretion but de novo for the merits factor where needed.
The district court’s injunction was affirmed as to the first Winter factor (likelihood of success) and other Winter factors, and the limit was preliminarily enjoined.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the $800 recall-contribution limit violates the First Amendment	Farris argues the limit burden on speech is unconstitutional	Washington argues limit is closely drawn to anti-corruption interests	Likely unconstitutional; injunction affirmed on merits
Standard of review for a preliminary injunction	Winter standard supports plaintiffs’ likelihood of success and irreparable harm	District court misapplied Cottrell/ Winter factors	Appeal shares de novo review for merits; final factors reviewed for abuse of discretion
Whether recall-committee contributions resemble direct candidate support or independent expenditures	Recall committees have tenuous relation to candidates and resemble independent expenditures	Limit justified by anti-corruption concerns	Limit not sufficiently justified; supports injunction on merits
Irreparable harm, balance of equities, and public interest support for injunction	Speech loss irreparable, timing critical in campaigns	Enforcement serves disclosure and anti-corruption goals	Winter factors satisfied; injunction proper
Mootness/dropping recall viability does not moot appeal	Controversy capable of repetition; will face same limit in future recalls	Campaign ended; no live dispute	Not moot; capable of repetition and review preserved

Randall v. Sorrell, 548 U.S. 230 (U.S. 2006) (closely drawn contribution limits on important anti-corruption interest)
Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1976) (framework for contribution limits and anti-corruption interests)
Citizens for Clean Gov't v. City of Seattle, 474 F.3d 647 (9th Cir. 2007) (application of closest to candidates scrutiny in recall context)
Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce v. City of Long Beach, 603 F.3d 684 (9th Cir. 2010) (limits applicable to close-relationship entities; independent expenditures distinct from direct contributions)
McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93 (U.S. 2003) (upheld anti-corruption limits for multifaceted political fundraising)
Cal. Med. Ass'n v. FEC, 453 U.S. 182 (U.S. 1981) (limits on multicandidate committees due to corruption concerns)
FEC v. Nat'l Conservative Political Action Comm., 470 U.S. 480 (U.S. 1985) (uncoordinated expenditures lack quid pro quo risk; limits scrutinized accordingly)
Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S. Ct. 876 (U.S. 2010) (independent expenditures; speech without candidate coordination; anti-corruption rationale narrowed)