Lair v. Murry
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24085
D. Mont.2012Background
- Plaintiffs challenge five Montana campaign finance/election statutes as unconstitutional under the First Amendment.
- Statutes include vote-reporting (13-35-225(3)(a)) and political-civil-libel (13-37-131).
- Statutes also include contribution limits for individuals/committees (13-37-216(1),(5)) and aggregate party limits (13-37-216(3),(5)).
- Montana bans corporate contributions and independent expenditures (13-35-227).
- MT Supreme Court upheld Montana’s corporate independent expenditure ban; Citizens United prompted further dispute; Supreme Court stay order issued in two related matters.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 13-35-225(3)(a) vagueness | Vague boundary between prohibited/freely speech. | Phrase closely related in time/the same issue is definable. | Enjoined; statute unconstitutionally vague. |
| 13-37-131 vagueness | Relevancy to campaign issues is vague and overbroad. | Relevancy defined by speaker; not vague. | Enjoined; statute unconstitutionally vague. |
| 13-37-216(1),(3),(5) contribution limits | Limits are unconstitutional or overbroad. | Limits are closely drawn to prevent corruption. | No preliminary injunction; limits likely constitutional at this stage. |
| 13-35-227 corporate contributions/independent expenditures | Bans unconstitutional as applied to corporations' independent expenditures. | Corporate contributions bans are constitutional; independent expenditures moot after stay. | Enjoined as to corporate contributions? Granted for corporate contributions; moot for independent expenditures due to Supreme Court stay. |
Key Cases Cited
- Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1976) (contribution limits must be closely drawn to important interests)
- Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (U.S. Supreme Court, 2010) (corporate independent expenditures unconstitutional)
- Beaumont v. FEC, 539 U.S. 146 (U.S. Supreme Court, 2003) (corporate contributions bans constitutional)
- Randall v. Sorrell, 548 U.S. 230 (U.S. Supreme Court, 2006) (strictures on state contribution limits; danger signs approach)
- Montana Right to Life Assn. v. Eddleman, 343 F.3d 1085 (9th Cir. 2003) (contribution limits closely drawn; state interest established)
- Thalheimer v. City of San Diego, 645 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir. 2011) (post-Citizens United framework for contribution limits)