Wisconsin Right to Life State Political Action Committee v. Barland
664 F.3d 139
7th Cir.2011Background
- Right to Life PACChallenge Wisconsin aggregate $10,000 annual cap on contributions to state/local candidates, parties, and committees (Wis. Stat. §11.26(4)); Right to Life PAC alleged violation when funding was used for independent expenditures.
- District court abstained under Pullman due to unsettled state-law interpretation and pending Wisconsin Prosperity Network challenge to GAB 1.28; case stayed.
- November 2010 elections passed; recall elections in 2011 intensified fundraising tensions for independent expenditure groups.
- Right to Life PAC sought limited relief to allow unlimited contributions for recalls; district court denied lift of stay.
- Interim appellate panel granted injunction pending appeal, blocking enforcement of §11.26(4) for independent-expenditure groups; panel expedited appeal.
- Seventh Circuit vacates abstention, holds §11.26(4) unconstitutional as applied to independent-expenditure committees, and remands for permanent injunction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §11.26(4) is unconstitutional as applied to independent-expenditure committees | Right to Life PAC contends cap violates First Amendment when applied to independent spenders | GAB and state argue for deference to state law and potential state-law resolution | Unconstitutional as applied to independent-expenditure groups |
| Standing | Right to Life PAC has injury from contributors barred from exceeding the cap | No standing because Right to Life PAC itself does not contribute | Standing exists; injuries to the committee and contributors suffice |
| Ripeness | Constitutionality ripe due to near-future elections and ongoing chill on speech | Claims depend on contingent events | Ripeness satisfied; decision appropriate now |
| Abstention (Pullman) | Pullman abstention inappropriate; state-law interpretation not necessary for federal ruling | Abstention proper pending state-law resolution | Abstention error; district court should not have stayed; merits reach passed Pullman |
Key Cases Cited
- Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S. Ct. 876 (2010) (independent expenditures do not corrupt or create appearance of corruption; strict scrutiny not applicable to independent expenditures)
- Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) (expenditure limits subject to strict scrutiny; contribution limits to candidates with lesser scrutiny)
- Ariz. Free Enter. Club’s Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett, 131 S. Ct. 2806 (2011) (court exacts scrutiny framework for campaign-finance restrictions; matching funds not justified by anticorruption interest)
- FEC v. National Conservative Political Action Committee, 470 U.S. 480 (1985) (anti-corruption interest identified as the core justification for limits on contributions to candidates)
- SpeechNow.org v. FEC, 599 F.3d 686 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (independent-expenditure group contributions not subject to federal aggregate limits after Citizens United)
- Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce v. City of Long Beach, 603 F.3d 684 (9th Cir. 2010) (upheld invalidation of limits on contributions to independent-expenditure groups under Citizens United)
- N.C. Right to Life, Inc. v. Leake, 525 F.3d 274 (4th Cir. 2008) (contributions to independent-expenditure groups cannot be constitutionally limited)
- EMILY’s List v. FEC, 581 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (pre-Citizens United ruling recognizing limits on contributions to independent groups lack justification)