121 A.3d 792
Me.2015Background
- National Organization for Marriage (NOM) solicited and received donations in support of Maine’s 2009 people’s veto referendum but did not register as a ballot question committee (BQC) under 21‑A M.R.S. § 1056‑B or file related reports.
- The Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices investigated, found NOM received contributions over $5,000 for the purpose of influencing the referendum, ordered NOM to register and file reports, and assessed fines totaling $50,250.
- NOM pursued federal constitutional challenges (unsuccessfully) and then sought administrative and Superior Court stays; the Commission granted a partial administrative stay and the Superior Court denied relief on NOM’s Rule 80C petition.
- NOM appealed the Superior Court’s denial to the Maine Law Court and moved there to clarify that M.R. Civ. P. 62(e) automatically stays the agency action or, alternatively, for a discretionary stay pending appeal.
- The Law Court concluded Rule 62(e) does not automatically stay agency decisions subject to Rule 80C review and denied NOM’s alternative motion for a stay because NOM failed to show a substantial possibility of success on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether M.R. Civ. P. 62(e) automatically stays an agency decision on appeal | Rule 62(e) stays execution upon a judgment, so NOM’s appeal should automatically stay the Commission’s decision | Rule 62(e) applies to judgments/orders from which an appeal lies; agency decisions are not directly appealable to Law Court and are not judgments enforceable by execution | Rule 62(e) does not apply to agency actions reviewed under Rule 80C; no automatic stay |
| Whether NOM is entitled to a discretionary stay pending appeal from the Law Court | Enforcement would force disclosure of donors and cause irreparable First Amendment injury; balance favors a stay | Public interest in disclosure and prior proceedings support enforcement; Commission has already delayed some enforcement | Denied: although irreparable injury shown and little harm to Commission, NOM failed to show a substantial possibility of success on the merits |
| Whether Commission misapplied statutory definitions of "contribution" (subsections B and C) | Commission ignored requirement that funds be given "specifically" for a ballot question and improperly treated transfers to SMM as contributions | Commission applied an objective reasonable-person test for solicitations and reasonably interpreted subsection C in context of recipient activity | Held: Commission reasonably applied subsection B and its interpretation of ambiguous subsection C was entitled to deference; NOM unlikely to prevail |
| Whether Commission’s findings lacked substantial evidence or were biased | NOM contends findings unsupported and Commissioners biased against it | Commission relied on extensive solicitation and transfer evidence; dissenting statements do not establish bias | Held: substantial evidence supports findings for at least one category exceeding $5,000; no sufficient evidence of bias |
Key Cases Cited
- Nat’l Org. for Marriage, Inc. v. McKee, 669 F.3d 34 (1st Cir.) (upholding §1056‑B application and endorsing objective reasonable-person solicitation test)
- NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449 (1958) (disclosure of members/donors can burden freedom of association)
- Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010) (disclosure enables electorate to evaluate political funding)
- Bangor Historic Track, Inc. v. Dep’t of Agric., Food & Rural Res., 837 A.2d 129 (Me.) (standards for stays/injunctive relief on appeal)
- First NH Banks Granite State v. Scarborough, 615 A.2d 248 (Me.) (definition of "judgment" for Rule 62(e) purposes)
- Wine & Spirits Retailers, Inc. v. Rhode Island, 418 F.3d 36 (1st Cir.) (likelihood of success is critical in four‑factor stay analysis)
- Kane v. Comm’r of the Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 960 A.2d 1196 (Me.) (defer to agency interpretation of ambiguous statute when reasonable)
- Emerson v. Dep’t of Env. Prot., 563 A.2d 762 (Me.) (courts weigh equitable factors collectively when deciding stays)