Republican Party v. King
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7225
D.N.M.2012Background
- Plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction to block enforcement of certain New Mexico Campaign Reporting Act provisions limiting contributions.
- Act prohibits contributions over $5,000 to political committees, others prohibit contributions over $5,000 from committees to committees or candidates, and restrict solicitation/receipt of >$5,000.
- Plaintiffs include NM-GOP, Local Parties, NMER PAC, NMTA, and several individuals; Defendants include NM AG, NM Secretary of State, and district attorneys.
- Two defendants (Secretary Duran and DA Orlando) stipulated to the injunction; four others contest issuance.
- Plaintiffs’ requested injunctive relief covers state campaigns, independent expenditures, and federal campaigns.
- Court analyzes standing, likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, equities, and public interest, and partially grants the injunction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge contribution limits | Plaintiffs allege concrete fear of enforcement deterring First Amendment activity. | Not expressly stated here; court analyzes standing standards. | Plaintiffs have standing; fear of enforcement suffices for challenge. |
| Constitutional standard for challenge to contribution limits | Argues strict scrutiny per Citizens United should apply to all limits on political speech. | Contends closely drawn scrutiny applies to contribution limits. | Court applies closely drawn scrutiny, rejecting broad strict scrutiny for all limits; uses controlling precedent. |
| Limits on contributions for nonindependent state campaigns | NM-GOP and parties argue $5,000 limit violates First Amendment as applied to state campaigns. | Argues limits are closely drawn to anti-corruption interest and permissible. | Limits as applied to nonindependent state-campaign contributions are constitutional; injunction denied for this category. |
| Limits on contributions for independent expenditures | Limiting contributions designated for independent expenditures violates First Amendment because no anti-corruption interest. | Defendants advocate same as for other limits to prevent corruption. | Contribution limits for independent expenditures are unconstitutional as applied; injunction granted for segregated independent expenditures. |
| Federal campaign contributions and preemption | FECA preempts NM limits on federal campaigns. | Act excludes federal candidates per provision; FECA preempts if applicable. | Act does not impose limits on federal campaign contributions; if it did, FECA preempts; injunction granted for federal campaign category. |
Key Cases Cited
- Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1976) (fundamental framework for scrutiny of campaign restrictions)
- Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (U.S. 2010) (independent expenditures receive strong First Amendment protection; limits must be narrowly tailored)
- Colorado II, 533 U.S. 431 (U.S. 2001) (limits on coordinated party expenditures; close scrutiny framework)
- Cal. Med. Ass’n v. FEC, 453 U.S. 182 (U.S. 1981) (permissibility of contribution limits under close scrutiny)
- FEC v. Nat’l Conservative PAC, 470 U.S. 480 (U.S. 1985) (limits on independent expenditures and corruption rationale)
- Wis. Right to Life State PAC v. Borland, 664 F.3d 139 (7th Cir. 2011) (analysis of anti-corruption interest and contribution limits)
- D.L.S. v. Utah, 374 F.3d 971 (10th Cir. 2004) (standing and justiciability in First Amendment challenges)