Illinois Liberty Pac v. Madigan
902 F. Supp. 2d 1113
N.D. Ill.2012Background
- Enacted 2009 Illinois Disclosure and Regulation of Campaign Contributions and Expenditures Act classifies contributors (individuals, political committees, and corporations/associations).
- Act imposes contribution limits: individuals $5,000, PACs $50,000, corporations/associations $10,000; parties have higher, sometimes unlimited, contributions.
- Waiver provisions lift limits if a self-funding candidate or independent expenditure exceeds thresholds, allowing unlimited contributions in that race.
- Plaintiff Illinois Liberty PAC and Bachrach challenge limits on individuals and PACs to candidates (and individuals to PACs) as First Amendment and Equal Protection violations.
- Plaintiff sought a preliminary injunction; court denied the motion after considering likelihood of success and irreparable harm.
- Background detail includes definitions of candidate committees, PACs, and independent expenditure committees and the procedural posture of the case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do the challenged contribution limits violate the First Amendment? | Illinois Liberty argues limits violate free speech. | Illinois contends limits are closely drawn to important interests. | No, limits likely constitutional. |
| Does exempting political parties from limits violate the First Amendment? | Exemption disfavors individuals and PACs. | Exemption permissible; parties have special role. | No, exemption does not violate the First Amendment. |
| Do waiver provisions render the limits invalid under the First Amendment? | Waivers undercut core limits. | Waivers align with Millionaire’s Amendment rationale. | No, waivers do not render limits infirm. |
| Do the limits violate Equal Protection by treating speakers differently? | Different treatment of parties vs individuals/PACs is unconstitutional. | Standards align with First Amendment analysis; no separate protection violation. | No, equal protection challenge fails for same reasons. |
Key Cases Cited
- Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1976) (upholds expenditure vs contribution distinction; limits generally permissible)
- Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (U.S. 2010) (upholds disclosure and contribution framework; supports limits as close drawn)
- Colorado II, 533 U.S. 431 (U.S. 2001) (limits on party expenditures; discuss party vs. individual treatment)
- Randall v. Sorrell, 548 U.S. 230 (U.S. 2006) (struck down extremely low limits; discusses party vs individual contributions)
- McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93 (U.S. 2003) (recognizes role of parties; differences between parties and interest groups)