Ognibene v. Parkes
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 25301
| 2d Cir. | 2011Background
- Appellants challenge three NYC CFA amendments known as pay-to-play: lower limits for doing-business contributors, non-matching for certain donors, and expansion of the corporate ban to LLCs/partnerships/LLPs.
- Program administers public matching funds for City offices; participating candidates get 6:1 matching up to $175 per donor; contributions by doing business entities are excluded from matching.
- ‘Doing business’ includes contracts, real estate, certain approvals, grants, economic development, pension fund investments, and transactions with lobbyists; lobbyists defined narrowly for matching purposes.
- Record shows concerns about donor contributions from those with city business and perceived influence; several reports documented disproportionate large contributions from doing-business donors.
- District court granted summary judgment upholding limits, non-matching, and entity ban; upheld as closely drawn to anti-corruption/appearance interests; Citizens United issued after district decision.
- On appeal, court applies a closely drawn standard, analyzes under Buckley/MTK line, and discusses Citizens United, Bennett, Green Party, and Green Party Connecticut precedents.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are doing-business limits closely drawn to prevent corruption? | Ognibene contends limits overbroad and not closely drawn. | City shows significant anti-corruption interest and narrow tailoring. | Yes; closely drawn to anti-corruption/appearance concerns. |
| May non-matching provisions be sustained under a closely drawn standard? | Non-matching burdens speech; argues improper targeting. | Non-matching aligns with public financing goals and anti-circumvention. | Yes; closely drawn to important governmental interest. |
| Is the entity ban (LLCs/LLPs/partnerships) constitutionally permissible? | Entity ban overbroad and punitive to certain entities. | Anti-corruption/anti-circumvention rationale supports ban; entities pose circumvention risk. | Yes; closely drawn and justified by anti-corruption/anti-circumvention interests. |
| Does Citizens United foreclose NYC limits or require different scrutiny? | Citizens United undermines any source-based limits via broad protection of spending. | Citizens United preserves contribution limits and does not apply to these limits as here. | Citizens United does not control the result; limits remain permissible. |
Key Cases Cited
- Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S. Ct. 876 (U.S. 2010) (distinguishes expenditures vs. contributions; supports anti-corruption rationale for limits)
- Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1976) (distinguishes contribution limits as lesser-speech-restrictions; permits close tailoring)
- Beaumont v. FEC, 539 U.S. 146 (U.S. 2003) (upholds corporate ban; supports anti-corruption/anti-circumvention interests)
- Green Party v. Garfield, 616 F.3d 189 (2d Cir. 2010) (lobbyist contributions ban analyzed; distinction between influence and corruption)
- Randall v. Sorrell, 548 U.S. 230 (U.S. 2006) (underdrawn versus narrowly tailored limits; relevance to intensity of speech)
- Davis v. FEC, 554 U.S. 724 (U.S. 2008) (contribution limits reviewed under a less stringent standard than expenditures)
- Arizona Free Enterprise Club v. Bennett, 131 S. Ct. 2806 (U.S. 2011) (public matching funds; burden on privately financed candidates)
- Green Party of Connecticut v. Garfield, 616 F.3d 189 (2d Cir. 2010) (recent history of corruption not required for restraints; appearance evidence)