Free and Fair Election Fund v. Missouri Ethics Commission, 903 F.3d 759

In 2016 Missouri amended its constitution to add campaign-finance rules, including Art. VIII § 23.3(12), which bans political action committees (PACs) from receiving contributions from other PACs.
The Missouri Ethics Commission enforces campaign-finance rules and stated its intent to enforce the new constitutional provision.
Two Missouri PACs (Free and Fair Election Fund and AMEC-PAC) sued to enjoin enforcement, alleging § 23.3(12) violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments; the district court permanently enjoined enforcement.
The central legal question: whether the PAC-to-PAC transfer ban is a permissible restriction on political speech/association under the First Amendment (exacting scrutiny) to prevent corruption or its appearance.
The Commission argued the ban prevents circumvention of Missouri’s individual contribution limits and promotes transparency; plaintiffs argued the ban impermissibly restricts speech and association and is not closely drawn to the anti-corruption interest.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding the ban facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment and accordingly upholding the district court’s injunction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 23.3(12) is facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment (exacting scrutiny)	The ban restricts PAC speech and association and is not closely drawn to prevent quid pro quo corruption; facially invalid.	The ban serves the important anti-corruption/transparency interest by preventing laundering of contributions through PAC chains to evade contribution limits.	Affirmed: ban is facially unconstitutional — Missouri failed to show a substantial risk of quid pro quo corruption and the means are not closely drawn.
Whether the ban must be enjoined as applied to PACs that make only independent expenditures	Independent-expenditure PACs argued the State has no sufficient anti-corruption interest to restrict contributions to them.	Commission contended the provision may not apply to pure IE PACs or that the ban is justified to prevent evasion.	Affirmed injunction in full: even if scope disputed, the State lacks a sufficiently important interest to bar contributions to pure independent-expenditure PACs, so the provision is enjoined in its entirety.

McCutcheon v. FEC, 572 U.S. 185 (2014) (contribution limits and anti-corruption interest require exacting scrutiny; quid pro quo corruption is the only sufficient interest)
Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) (contributions implicate speech and association; laws must be closely drawn to match anti-corruption interest)
Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010) (independent expenditures by organizations are protected political speech; anti-corruption interest limited)
Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC, 528 U.S. 377 (2000) (upheld contribution limits under exacting scrutiny framework)
FEC v. National Conservative Political Action Comm., 470 U.S. 480 (1985) (PACs have First Amendment protections)
United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460 (2010) (facial invalidation standard: law is facially invalid if no set of circumstances exists under which it would be valid)
Phelps-Roper v. Ricketts, 867 F.3d 883 (8th Cir. 2017) (facial challenge standard restated)
Qwest Corp. v. Scott, 380 F.3d 367 (8th Cir. 2004) (de novo review of injunction turns on legal First Amendment questions)