71 F. Supp. 3d 178
D.D.C.2014Background
- FECA imposes a $2,600 per election contribution limit to a candidate; primary and general are separate elections.
- Plaintiffs Holmes and Jost want to fund $5,200 to their preferred candidates by combining primary and general contributions, avoiding only a wasted primary.
- FECA defines an “election” as general, special, primary, or runoff; totals depend on number of elections a candidate runs.
- Regulations allocate contributions across elections; un-designated contributions default to the next election and redesignation allows unused primary funds to be used for general, preserving per-election limits.
- Plaintiffs argue the per-election limit burdens First and Fifth Amendment rights and seek a preliminary injunction to stop FECA enforcement.
- Court denied the preliminary injunction, finding no likelihood of success on merits, no irreparable harm, and no public-interest shift favoring plaintiffs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FECA per-election limit is unconstitutional as applied | Holmes (and Jost) contend $2,600 per election limits violate First Amendment | FEC argues limit is closely drawn to prevent corruption and appears in Buckley framework | Not likely to succeed; limit adequately reduces corruption and matches important interest |
| Whether FECA per-election limit violates equal protection (Fifth Amendment) | Equal protection violated by disparate treatment of uncontested primaries vs contested ones | Per-election limits apply equally to all contributors; unequal outcomes reflect election dynamics, not discrimination | No merit; equal protection not violated; distinction reflects political process, not improper classification |
| Whether preliminary injunction should be granted given standards (likelihood of success, irreparable harm, public interest) | Injunction is needed to permit fuller political expression | Constitutional regime has long been in place; altering it on eve of election would be imprudent | Denied; plaintiffs fail on all four Winter factors; public interest weighs against injunction |
Key Cases Cited
- Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1976) (upholding contribution limits to prevent corruption; framework for evaluating limits)
- Davis v. FEC, 554 U.S. 724 (U.S. 2008) (closely drawn scrutiny for contribution limits; limits can be sustained to curb corruption)
- McCutcheon v. FEC, 134 S. Ct. 1434 (U.S. 2014) (recognizes limits on expenditures/contributions; per-election limits remain permissible as narrowly tailored)
- Nixon v. Shrink Mo. Gov’t PAC, 528 U.S. 377 (U.S. 2000) (First Amendment burden of political contributions analyzed under closely drawn scrutiny)
- Randall v. Sorrell, 548 U.S. 230 (U.S. 2006) (legislature’s empirical judgments on limits deferentially examined; scrutiny of limits)