Gerald Geier and Stop Now! v. Missouri Ethics Commission
2015 Mo. LEXIS 226
| Mo. | 2015Background
- Gerald Geier was treasurer of Stop Now!, a Missouri PAC, from 1991–2012; the PAC became inactive after 2003 and its bank account was closed in 2006, but Geier did not notify the Missouri Ethics Commission (MEC) or file a termination statement until 2011.
- Stop Now! continued to file quarterly reports indicating no activity through 2010; it failed to file reports for the first three quarters of 2011, prompting an MEC investigation.
- The MEC held a closed probable-cause hearing under §105.961.3, found probable cause of noncriminal reporting violations, and then issued a letter stating no further action would be taken.
- Geier admitted the statutory violations but challenged (1) the reporting statutes as unconstitutional as-applied and facially, (2) §105.961.3 (closed hearings) under the First and Sixth Amendments, and (3) the MEC’s authority to hold a treasurer personally responsible.
- The Administrative Hearing Commission and the Jackson County Circuit Court granted summary judgment for the MEC; the Missouri Supreme Court (en banc) affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Geier) | Defendant's Argument (MEC) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Are the reporting/disclosure statutes constitutional as-applied to an inactive PAC? | Reporting requirements are unnecessary for an inactive PAC and impose burdens that outweigh any diminished state interest. | Disclosure requirements serve important informational, anticorruption, and enforcement interests even for inactive PACs and are substantially related to those interests; burden is minimal. | Reporting statutes survive exacting scrutiny as-applied; MEC judgment affirmed. |
| 2) Are Geier’s facial challenges to the reporting statutes ripe / does he have standing to seek declaratory/injunctive relief on behalf of hypothetical dormant PACs? | Relaxed ripeness/standing in First Amendment cases; enforcement chills speech and justifies pre-enforcement relief. | No concrete factual record of similarly situated parties or imminent injury; claims are speculative and unripe. | Facial/pre-enforcement claims not ripe and thus dismissed. |
| 3) Does §105.961.3 (closed MEC hearings) violate the First or Sixth Amendments (facial/as-applied)? | Closed probable-cause hearing infringed public/media First Amendment access and Sixth Amendment public trial rights. | Hearings were investigative/noncriminal; Sixth Amendment inapplicable; no clearly established First Amendment right of access to noncriminal investigatory MEC proceedings. | §105.961.3 is constitutional as-applied and facially; Sixth Amendment inapplicable; no First Amendment violation shown. |
| 4) Could MEC attribute reporting violations to Geier personally as treasurer? | Statutes are ambiguous and treasurer should not be personally liable; at minimum liability should be only in official capacity. | §130.058 makes committee treasurer ultimately responsible for reporting; MEC had authority to investigate treasurer and attributed violations to Geier in his official capacity. | MEC had authority; violations properly attributed to Geier in his capacity as treasurer; judgment for MEC affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) (disclosure requirements implicate First Amendment but are subject to exacting scrutiny)
- Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010) (disclosure rules differ from expenditure limits and are reviewed under exacting scrutiny)
- John Doe No. 1 v. Reed, 561 U.S. 186 (2010) (strength of governmental interest must reflect seriousness of First Amendment burden)
- McCutcheon v. FEC, 572 U.S. 185 (2014) (distinguishes contribution limits from disclosure interests)
- Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, Inc. v. Swanson, 692 F.3d 864 (8th Cir. 2012) (invalidated certain ongoing reporting requirements for associations but excluded PACs from its holding)
- Impey v. Missouri Ethics Comm’n, 442 S.W.3d 42 (Mo. banc 2014) (describes MEC’s investigative and probable-cause role and procedures)
- Weinschenk v. State, 203 S.W.3d 201 (Mo. banc 2006) (recognizes Missouri’s significant interests in election integrity)