New York Progress and Protection PAC v. Walsh
733 F.3d 483
2d Cir.2013Background
- NYPPP seeks to enjoin enforcement of NY Elec. Law §§ 14-114(8) and 14-126(2) as applied to it; these provisions cap individual contributions to NY committees at $150,000 per year and criminalize failure to file statements or violations.
- NYPPP is an independent-expenditure committee advocating for Joseph Lhota in the NYC mayoral race; donor ready to contribute $200,000.
- District court denied a preliminary injunction; NYPPP appealed.
- Issues concern whether the cap on contributions to independent-expenditure committees violates the First Amendment.
- The appeal was argued after the 2013 NYC mayoral primary and before the 2013 general election; the district court’s order denied relief is reviewed de novo as to constitutional questions and for abuse of discretion on injunctions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the contribution cap to independent-expenditure committees violates the First Amendment | NYPPP argues the cap violates First Amendment rights by limiting contributions to groups engaging in independent spending | State Defendants contend the cap serves anti-corruption interests and can be sustained | Likelihood of success on merits; rule that cap is unconstitutional for independent expenditures (reversed on merits) |
| Whether the district court erred by not analyzing likelihood of success and irreparable harm | District court failed to assess likelihood of success and irreparable harm adequately | District court concluded no substantial likelihood of success and considered limited irreparable harm | District court error; independent examination required; NYPPP shown substantial likelihood of success |
| Whether the balance of equities and public interest support a preliminary injunction | Granting injunction protects First Amendment rights during a critical campaign period | State argues disruption to election process and enforcement against other groups | Public interest in protecting speech outweighs potential harm; injunction warranted |
| Whether preexisting case law compels a different standard of scrutiny given independent expenditures | Citizens United framework applies to independent expenditures and limits on contributions to such groups | Traditional anti-corruption rationales may justify limits | Citizens United framework applies; neither cap nor purpose withstands First Amendment scrutiny in this context |
| Whether the district court’s reasoning about “independence” of the committee forecloses relief | Independent status of the committee remains intact post-Citizens United | State contends lack of independence for single-candidate, time-bound committees | Independence remains the key feature; district court erred in discounting it |
Key Cases Cited
- Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 ( Supreme Court 2010) (government has no anti-corruption interest to justify limitations on independent expenditures)
- Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) (expenditure limits subject to heightened scrutiny; contributions to independent committees scrutinized differently)
- SpeechNow.org v. FEC, 599 F.3d 686 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (no anti-corruption interest in limiting contributions to independent expenditure groups)
- Wis. Right to Life State Political Action Comm. v. Barland, 664 F.3d 139 (7th Cir. 2011) (contributions to committees engaged solely in independent expenditures unconstitutional post-Citizens United)
- Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce v. City of Long Beach, 603 F.3d 684 (9th Cir. 2010) (contributions to chambers for independent expenditures lack anti-corruption justification)
- N.C. Right to Life, Inc. v. Leake, 525 F.3d 274 (4th Cir. 2008) (pre-Citizens United contributions to independent expenditure groups unconstitutional)