John Schickel v. Craig Dilger, 925 F.3d 858

Kentucky state senator John Schickel and candidate David Watson challenged several Kentucky campaign finance and legislative ethics provisions as violating the First and Fourteenth Amendments; they sued enforcement agencies KREF and KLEC.
Challenged laws included (a) a now-repealed self‑funding cap on candidate loans, and (b) seven ethics provisions (contribution bans, an in‑session contribution ban, a gift ban, and restrictions on lobbyists serving as treasurers or soliciting contributions).
The district court largely held the ethics provisions unconstitutional (except the in‑session ban) and dismissed the self‑funding claim as moot; Kentucky appealed and obtained a stay.
On appeal, the Sixth Circuit addressed standing for pre‑enforcement challenges and the constitutionality of the ethics rules under First Amendment/closely‑drawn scrutiny and related doctrines.
The court affirmed dismissal of the self‑funding claim for lack of a credible threat of enforcement, found legislators lacked standing to challenge provisions that regulate only lobbyists, and upheld the in‑session ban and other provisions directed at legislators (contribution ban and gift ban) as closely drawn anti‑corruption measures.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing to challenge repealed self‑funding restriction (§ 121.150(13))	Schickel/Watson fear enforcement despite prior Sixth Circuit invalidation	KREF disavowed enforcement; statute was effectively dead	No standing; claim dismissed (no credible threat)
Standing to challenge provisions that regulate only lobbyists (treasurer/solicitation, lobbyist contribution/gift rules)	Legislators claimed associational injury from restrictions on third‑party lobbyist activity	Kentucky: plaintiffs are not regulated actors; need concrete evidence a lobbyist would be stopped or has been stopped	No standing; plaintiffs failed to present affidavits or specific evidence of third‑party conduct being deterred
First Amendment challenge to bans on lobbyist contributions and gifts to legislators (§§ 6.767(2), 6.751(2))	Plaintiffs: bans unduly burden core political association/speech; content‑based/suspect speaker classification	Kentucky: measures prevent quid‑pro‑quo corruption or its appearance and are prophylactic; apply closely drawn review	Upheld: bans are content neutral and survive closely drawn scrutiny as tailored anti‑corruption measures
In‑session contribution ban on employers of lobbyists and PACs (§ 6.767(3))	Plaintiffs: overbroad and unnecessary	Kentucky: time‑limited restriction targets highest‑risk period for appearance of corruption	Upheld: closely drawn and permissible; limitation to session is narrowly tailored

Anderson v. Spear, 356 F.3d 651 (6th Cir.) (prior Sixth Circuit decision invalidating self‑funding restriction)
Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) (contribution limits impose only marginal restriction; close‑drawn scrutiny)
McCutcheon v. FEC, 572 U.S. 185 (2014) (describes the ‘closely drawn’ standard for contribution limits)
Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010) (limits on contributions/gifts are preventative to protect against corruption or its appearance)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (Article III standing principles for pre‑enforcement challenges)
Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U.S. 149 (2014) (credible threat standard for pre‑enforcement standing)
Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U.S. 398 (2013) (imminence requirement for standing; speculative future harms insufficient)
FEC v. Beaumont, 539 U.S. 146 (2003) (upholding contribution ban under less than strict scrutiny)