Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, Inc. v. Swanson
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 9921
| 8th Cir. | 2011Background
- Three Minnesota corporations challenge Minnesota's corporate election laws, targeting the ban on direct corporate contributions and the regulation of independent expenditures.
- The challenges respond to Citizens United v. FEC, arguing Minnesota retains a de facto or functional ban on corporate independent expenditures.
- Minnesota amended its laws to allow corporate independent expenditures only through a political fund, with added disclosure, treasurer, segregation, and reporting requirements.
- If a corporation uses a political fund, it must appoint a treasurer, file periodic reports, segregate assets, and dissolve the fund when appropriate.
- If a corporation contributes to an existing political fund, disclosure requirements vary by whether the donor is for-profit or non-profit, and by a threshold amount.
- The district court denied a preliminary injunction; Minnesota Citizens appeals, seeking to enjoin the challenged provisions, and the Eighth Circuit affirms in part and rejects in part.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Minnesota retained a ban on corporate independent expenditures. | Minnesota maintains a de facto ban via political funds. | Minnesota's regime regulates but does not ban independent expenditures; disclosures and fund mechanics are less burdensome than PAC rules. | Unlikely to prevail; regime not a per se ban. |
| Whether Minnesota's independent expenditure regulations are narrowly tailored under exacting/strict scrutiny. | Regulations burden speech and are not narrowly tailored. | Disclosure-oriented regime is tailored to provide information and fosters transparency. | Disclosures are tailored; regime passes exacting scrutiny. |
| Whether Minnesota's ban on direct corporate contributions to candidates/affiliated entities is permissible. | Citizens United undermines Beaumont and prohibits corporate contribution bans. | Beaumont remains controlling; banning direct contributions advances anti-corruption interests and is closely drawn. | Beaumont controls; ban upheld. |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying a preliminary injunction. | Likely to prevail on merits; injunction should issue. | Plaintiffs fail to show likelihood of success on merits and other factors weigh against injunction. | No abuse of discretion; injunction denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm'n, 130 S. Ct. 876 (U.S. Supreme Court, 2010) (disclosure allowed; ban on independent expenditures struck)
- Beaumont v. FEC, 539 U.S. 146 (U.S. Supreme Court, 2003) (upheld contributions limits; PACs as circumvention conduit; set standard for closely drawn)
- Austin v. Mich. Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1990) (anti-distortion rationale; equal protection concerns discussed)
- Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1976) (disclosure and contribution considerations; standard for scrutiny)
- Planned Parenthood Minn., N.D., S.D. v. Rounds, 530 F.3d 724 (8th Cir., 2008) (dataphase framework and preliminary injunction standards)
- Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1997) (overruling general considerations on precedent; approach to controlling authority)