Lair v. Murry
903 F. Supp. 2d 1077
D. Mont.2012Background
- This case challenges Montana's campaign contribution limits in Mont. Code Ann. § 13-37-216 as unconstitutional under the First Amendment.
- A bench trial was held September 12–14, 2012 to resolve the constitutionality of those limits.
- Plaintiffs include American Tradition Partnership PAC, Montana Right to Life Association PAC, Lake County Republican Central Committee, Beaverhead County Republican Central Committee, and individual donors seeking to exceed limits.
- Defendants include the Commissioner of Political Practices and Montana Attorney General, pursuing enforcement of the limits.
- The court heard expert testimony from plaintiffs’ Clark Bensen and defendants’ Edwin Bender, and ultimately found the limits unconstitutional in light of Randall v. Sorrell.
- The court ordered permanent injunctions against enforcing the contribution limits and incorporated prior orders and related stay considerations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are Montana's contribution limits unconstitutional under closely drawn requirements after Randall? | Randall's framework shows danger signs and failure to be closely drawn. | Limits are closely drawn to serve important state interests and preserve political balance. | Yes; the limits are unconstitutional under Randall. |
| Do the Randall five factors compel invalidation of Montana's limits despite inflation adjustments? | All factors indicate overbreadth and insufficient funding for challengers. | Some factors are neutral or supportive due to inflation adjustments. | Yes; the five factors weigh against constitutionality. |
| Should any Montana contribution limits be severed or retained given the court’s ruling? | Severance could preserve constitutional portions. | Severability would be inappropriate given interdependence of provisions. | Severance denied; entire scheme set aside. |
Key Cases Cited
- Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) (established standard for contribution limits as closely drawn to a state interest)
- Randall v. Sorrell, 548 U.S. 230 (2006) (five-factor test for closely drawn limits with danger signs analysis)
- Shrink Missouri Gov’t PAC v. Cantwell, 528 U.S. 377 (1999) (upheld higher traditional limits; used as benchmark for lower limits)
- Mont. Right to Life Assn. v. Eddleman, 343 F.3d 1085 (9th Cir. 2003) (prior upholding of Montana limits; superseded by Randall)
- Thalheimer v. City of San Diego, 645 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir. 2011) (cites framework for applying Buckley/Randall standards)
- Sanders Co. Republican C. Comm. v. Bullock, 698 F.3d 741 (9th Cir. 2012) (affects associational rights of political committees in Montana)