Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, Inc. v. Swanson
692 F.3d 864
| 8th Cir. | 2012Background
- Appellants Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, Inc., The Taxpayers League of Minnesota, and Coastal Travel Enterprises, LLC challenged Minnesota campaign finance laws as applied to independent expenditures and contributions.
- Laws amended in 2010 after Citizens United, regulating independent expenditures, PACs, and ongoing disclosure obligations.
- Minnesota bans direct corporate contributions but allows independent expenditures through a political fund or PAC-like structures with reporting obligations.
- The Board administers disclosures and can audit, with duties including treasurer registration, fund segregation, and extensive periodic reporting.
- District court denied a preliminary injunction; a divided panel initially affirmed; we granted rehearing en banc and now reverse in part, affirm in part, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Independent expenditures: constitutionality of Minnesota’s regime | MCFL argues burden on corporate/free speech rights | Minnesota maintains regulatory framework serves disclosure/anti-corruption interests | Likely to violate First Amendment; ongoing burdens unjustified |
| Corporate contributions ban: validity under First Amendment | Beaumont/ Citizens United require less strict scrutiny for contributions | Beaumont permits PAC-like alternatives; ban historically permissible | Unlikely to be unconstitutional at this stage; likely constitutional under existing scrutiny |
| Ongoing reporting requirement: strict vs. exacting scrutiny | Disclosures essential; burden on speech justified by informational interests | Ongoing reports tied to disclosure interests; not overbroad | Ongoing reporting likely unconstitutional under exacting scrutiny; however, see concurrences for narrowing views |
| Remedy/severability: potential severability of ongoing reporting | If challenged provisions are unconstitutional, severing might cure | Severability would depend on district court factual record | Remand to determine severability and remedy consistent with ruling |
Key Cases Cited
- Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) (disclosure strictness; contribution vs expenditure distinctions; core vs marginal speech)
- Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010) (corporate speech rights; PAC burdens; disclosure interests robustly justified)
- Beaumont v. FEC, 539 U.S. 146 (2003) (PAC handling of contributions; narrowly drawn restrictions upheld; dissent discussed)
- SpeechNow.org v. FEC, 599 F.3d 686 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (upholding certain disclosure/organizational requirements for committees)
- Davis v. FEC, 554 U.S. 724 (2008) (relevance of disclosure correlation to governmental interests under Scrutiny)