Personal PAC v. McGuffage
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33553
N.D. Ill.2012Background
- Personal PAC sued ISBE to enjoin enforcement of 5/9-8.5(d) and 5/9-2(d) as applied to independent-expenditure-only PACs.
- Plaintiff argues these provisions abridge First Amendment rights by restricting independent expenditures.
- Court relies on Citizens United and Wisconsin Right to Life to invalidate these provisions insofar as applied to independent-expenditure-only PACs.
- Court finds the ruling narrow: provisions valid for other PACs and applications remain enforceable.
- Analyses focus on preliminary injunction standards and likelihood of success on the merits amid looming elections.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutional issue for the challenged provisions | Personal PAC: limits on independent expenditures violate First Amendment. | ISBE: Illinois law serves anti-corruption interests and may be upheld. | Laws applied to independent-expenditure-only PACs violate First Amendment. |
| Likelihood of success on the merits | Better-than-negligible chance of success under Citizens United/Wisconsin Right to Life. | Illinois history and anti-corruption concerns justify regulation. | Personal PAC has a better-than-negligible chance of prevailing. |
| Nature of relief (preliminary vs permanent) and tailoring | Permanent injunction appropriate given constitutional invalidity. | Relief should be preliminary to allow legislative response. | Permanent injunction warranted; relief is narrowly tailored. |
| Scope of injunction | Enjoin enforcement of first sentences of 5/9-8.5(d) and 5/9-2(d) as applied to independent-expenditure-only PACs. | Limitations may be narrowed but some enforcement should continue. | injunction narrowly targets only the challenged applications; other provisions remain enforceable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S. Ct. 876 (U.S. 2010) (independent expenditures do not lead to corruption; government interest insufficient)
- Wisconsin Right to Life, State Plan. Action Comm. v. Barland, 664 F.3d 139 (7th Cir. 2011) (no valid government interest to justify limits on independent-expenditure fundraising)
- Ariz. Free Enter. Club's Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett, 131 S. Ct. 2806 (U.S. 2011) (independent expenditures do not create quid pro quo concerns with candidates)
- Western Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Bullock, 271 P.3d 1 (Mont. 2011) (state-level decision cited; Citizens United premised approach; authoring state court’s view)