Republican Party of New Mexico v. King
741 F.3d 1089
10th Cir.2013Background
- New Mexico enacted 2009 campaign-contribution limits for political committees and candidates (N.M. Stat. § 1-19-34.7).
- Statute caps individual contributions to political committees at $5,000 and to statewide/nonstatewide candidates at $5,000/$2,300 respectively.
- Non-party political committees challenged the law as applied to them, seeking to solicit and accept funds for independent expenditures exceeding the limits.
- District court preliminarily enjoined the $5,000 contribution limit to political committees for independent expenditures, ruling it inconsistent with Citizens United.
- NMTA and NMER sought relief; NMTA could contribute to candidates and make independent expenditures; NMER served as an independent expenditure entity.
- On appeal, the court held Citizens United forecloses anti-corruption justification for limiting contributions to independent-expenditure-only groups and affirmed the injunction against the contribution limit for independent expenditures.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality of § 1-19-34.7(A)(1) as applied to independent-expenditure groups | NMER/NMTA contend it violates First Amendment post-Citizens United. | New Mexico argues anti-corruption interests still justify limits. | Unconstitutional as applied to independent expenditures. |
| Validity of restricting contributions to entities making independent expenditures | Limits hinder independent speech and fundraising for independent groups. | Contributions to such groups can be restricted to prevent circumvention and corruption. | No anti-corruption justification after Citizens United; limits invalid. |
| Impact of NMTA’s hybrid activities (independent expenditures and candidate contributions) | Segregated accounts render contributions for independent expenditures non-problematic. | Hybrid structure may raise concerns of coordination and circumvention. | Segregated accounts avoid corruption risk; no further justification for limits. |
| Reliance on pre-Citizens United precedents (Buckley, Cal-Med, McConnell, Colorado II) in this context | Pre-Citizens United cases support restricting independent-expenditure contributions. | Post-Citizens United framework supersedes those rationales for these entities. | Post-Citizens United controls; predecessors do not justify the challenged limits. |
| Anti-circumvention rationale post-Citizens United | Circumvention concerns justify restricting contributions to independent groups. | No independent anti-circumvention interest exists without corruption risk. | No valid anti-circumvention interest; limits invalid. |
Key Cases Cited
- Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (U.S. 2010) (independent expenditures not corrupting; limits on independent expenditure groups unconstitutional)
- Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1976) (distinguishes expenditures vs contributions; expenditures subject to strict scrutiny)
- FEC v. Colorado Republican Fed. Campaign Comm. (Colorado II), 533 U.S. 431 (U.S. 2001) (limits on parties and coordination; anti-corruption considerations)
- SpeechNow.org v. FEC, 599 F.3d 686 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (contribution limits to independent-expenditure groups unconstitutional post-Citizens United)
- Emily’s List v. FEC, 581 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (separating accounts for independent expenditures and contributions)
- Carey v. FEC, 791 F. Supp. 2d 121 (D.D.C. 2011) (separate accounts for direct contributions and independent expenditures satisfies federal law)
- Cal. Medical Ass’n v. FEC, 453 U.S. 182 (U.S. 1981) (upheld multi-candidate contribution limits; discussion on scope of contribution restrictions)
- McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93 (U.S. 2003) (upheld soft-money restrictions to parties; significance for coordination with candidates)
- Stop This Insanity, Inc. v. FEC, 902 F. Supp. 2d 23 (D.D.C. 2012) (hybrid PACs and anti-coordination issues; different circuit outcomes)