ORDER
The opinion filed January 19, 2012, and appearing at
With this action, the panel has voted to deny the petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc.
The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc and no judge has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. Fed. R.App. P. 35.
The petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc, filed February 9, 2012, is DENIED.
No further petitions for rehearing will be accepted.
OPINION
The district court granted a preliminary injunction prohibiting the State of Washington from enforcing its limitation on contributions to political committees supporting the recall of a state or county official. We conclude that the plaintiffs satisfied their burden under
Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.,
I. Background
A. Washington’s Recall Procedure
Washington provides its electorate with an elaborate procedure for recalling elected officials. According to Washington’s constitution, elected officials may be recalled for malfeasance, misfeasance or a violation of their oaths of office. See Wash. Const. art. I, §§ 33, 34. A voter who wishes to recall an elected official must prepare a typewritten charge naming the official and providing a detailed description of the grounds for recall. See Wash. Rev.Code § 29A.56.110. Recall charges are filed with the county auditor, and the county’s prosecuting attorney then prepares a ballot synopsis, which sets forth the name of the person charged, the title of the office and the elements of the charge. See id. §§ 29A.56.120, 29A.56.130. Within 15 days thereafter, the superior court conducts a hearing to decide “(1) whether or not the acts stated in the charge satisfy the criteria for which a recall petition may be filed [i.e., the sufficien *862 cy of the charges], and (2) the adequacy of the ballot synopsis.” Id. § 29A.56.140. The person demanding recall and the person subject to the recall may appear before the court with counsel and may appeal an adverse decision to the Washington Supreme Court. See id.
If the charges are held to be sufficient, the recall proponents begin to collect signatures from registered voters who support the petition. To recall a county official whose county has a population of 40,000 or more, proponents must collect a number of signatures “equal to twenty-five percent of the total number of votes cast for all candidates for the office to which the officer whose recall is demanded was elected at the preceding election.” Id. § 29A.56.180(1). They have 180 days to collect these signatures following court approval of the ballot synopsis. See id. § 29A.56.150(2). If proponents collect the required number of signatures, the auditor must “fix a date for a special election to determine whether or not the officer charged shall be recalled and discharged from office.” Id. § 29A.56.210. The election must be held “not less than forty-five nor more than sixty days” from the time that the signatures are verified. Id. If the recall is successful, the recalled official must vacate his or her office and the appropriate state legislative body will appoint a successor to fill the position until the next general election. See id. §§ 29A.56.260, 36.16.110.
The statutory provision challenged here prohibits contributions of more than $800 to a political committee making expenditures in a recall campaign. See id. § 42.17A.405(3). 1 , 2 This limit applies to monetary and in-kind contributions alike. See id. § 42.17A.005(15)(e) (“Contributions other than money or its equivalent are deemed to have a monetary value equivalent to the fair market value of the contribution ... and count[ ] towards any applicable contribution limit of the provider.”). 3
B. Plaintiffs’ Efforts to Recall Dale Washam
Plaintiff Robin Farris began an effort to recall Pierce County Assessor-Treasurer Dale Washam in 2010, after becoming aware of allegations that Washam had engaged in malfeasance while in office. Farris formed a political committee, Recall Dale Washam (“the Recall Committee”), which she registered with the Washington Public Disclosure Commission (PDC), and filed charges against Washam under § 29A.56.110.
After proceedings in the superior court and an appeal, the Washington Supreme Court found several of Farris’ charges sufficient and approved a ballot synopsis.
See In re Recall of Washam,
Meanwhile, shortly before the Washington Supreme Court issued its decision, the PDC issued the Recall Committee a “Notice of Administrative Charges,” alleging that the committee violated Washington Revised Code § 42.17A.405 by accepting more than $800 in in-kind contributions from Oldfield & Helsdon, a law firm that had represented the committee in the state superior court and supreme court proceedings on a pro bono basis. The PDC ultimately withdrew the charges, but stated:
The fact that PDC staff does not intend to allege a violation of [§ 42.17A.405] should not be construed to mean that the contribution limits of [§ 42.17A.405] are not applicable to the recall election. The statute, as written, is to be followed during the recall campaign.
C. Proceedings Before the District Court
In June 2011, Farris, the Recall Committee and Oldfield & Helsdon filed a complaint challenging the constitutionality of § 42.17A.405(3)’s $800 contribution limit. Two weeks later, the plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction enjoining the State from enforcing the contribution limit, arguing that the limit violated their First Amendment rights. In July 2011, the district court granted the motion, preliminarily enjoining the State from enforcing § 42.17A.405(3) against the plaintiffs during the 2011 recall campaign.
II. Jurisdiction
We have jurisdiction to review a district court’s order granting a preliminary injunction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). Before we can exercise our jurisdiction under § 1292(a)(1), however, we must ensure that this appeal continues to present a live controversy.
While this appeal was pending, the plaintiffs’ August 31, 2011 deadline to collect signatures passed. The plaintiffs did not collect the required number of signatures to qualify the recall question for the November 2011 ballot. Because the district court’s injunction applied only to the plaintiffs’ campaign for the November 2011 ballot, we must consider whether this appeal is now moot. We hold that it is not moot, because this situation is capable of repetition, yet evading review.
This exception to mootness applies when “(1) the challenged action is in its duration too short to be fully litigated prior to cessation or expiration; and (2) there is a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party will be subject to the same action again.”
Enyart v. Nat’l Conference of Bar Exam’rs,
Both elements are present here. The district court issued the injunction on July 15, 2011. Given its limited scope, the injunction was “fully and irrevocably carried out” as of August 31, 2011, when the plaintiffs failed to obtain enough signatures to qualify for the November ballot.
Enyart,
III. Discussion
A. Standard of Review
We review an order granting a preliminary injunction for an abuse of discretion.
See Katie A. ex rel. Ludin v. L.A. Cnty.,
B. Analysis
A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must show that: (1) she is likely to succeed on the merits, (2) she is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, (3) the balance of equities tips in her favor, and (4) an injunction is in the public interest.
See Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council,
Here, the district court determined that preliminary injunctive relief was appropriate by applying the first Cottrell factor (serious questions going to the merits) and *865 the last three Winter factors (irreparable harm, the balance of equities and the public interest). The court did not find that the balance of hardships tipped sharply in the plaintiffs’ favor, as the Cottrell test requires, or a likelihood of success on the merits, as the Winter test requires. The district court’s analysis was therefore incomplete. As we explain below, however, the district court’s error was harmless because plaintiffs’ showing satisfies all four prongs of the Winter standard. Because the district court did not apply the first Winter factor (likelihood of success on the merits), we review that factor de novo. Given that the district court applied the final three Winter factors, we review the court’s evaluation of those factors for an abuse of discretion.
1. Likelihood of Success on the Merits
The plaintiffs contend the $800 limit on contributions to recall committees violates the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech.
Under the First Amendment, “contribution limitations are permissible as long as the Government demonstrates that the limits are ‘closely drawn’ to match a ‘sufficiently important interest.’ ”
Randall v. Sorrell,
The State is certainly correct that states have an important governmental interest in preventing the actuality or appearance of quid pro quo corruption.
See Thalheimer,
This anticorruption interest justifies limits on contributions to political committees operated by candidates themselves.
See, e.g., Buckley,
On the other hand, both this court and the Supreme Court have rejected contribution limits as applied to committees having only a tenuous connection to political candidates. In
Citizens United,
the Court held that a federal law restricting corporate and union spending on electioneering communications that support or oppose a political candidate could not be sustained by the anticorruption interest. The Court reasoned that the “absence of prearrangement and coordination of an expenditure with the candidate or his agent not only undermines the value of the expenditure to the candidate, but also alleviates the danger that expenditures will be given as a
quid pro quo
for improper commitments from the candidate.”
Similarly, in Long Beach, we invalidated contribution limits as applied to political action committees making independent expenditures to support or oppose candidates for office. We explained that:
the strength of the state’s interest in preventing corruption is highly correlated to the nature of the contribution’s recipient. Thus, the state’s interest in the prevention of corruption — and, therefore, its power to impose contribution limits — is strongest when the state limits contributions made directly to political candidates____ As one moves away from the case in which a donor gives money directly to a candidate, however, the state’s interest in preventing corruption necessarily decreases.
Long Beach,
Like independent expenditure committees, recall committees in Washington have at most a tenuous relationship with candidates. The contribution limit here is thus materially indistinguishable from the limit we invalidated in
Long Beach.
Under Washington’s recall sys
*867
tem, political committees seeking to recall officials do not coordinate their spending with candidates for office. In the event a recall is successful, the successor to office is appointed by a governmental entity designated by state law — in this case, the Pierce County Council.
See
Wash. Rev. Code § 36.16.110; Pierce County, Wash., Charter art. 4, § 4.70. Thus, as Washington law is structured, expenditures by recall committees are similar to independent expenditures.
See Citizens United,
Neither the State nor amici, moreover, has presented any evidence showing that contributions to recall committees in Washington raise the specter of corruption, and certainly not in this case. The Wisconsin Democracy Campaign and Washington Public Campaigns, as amici curiae, attempt to bolster the State’s anti-corruption rationale with several newspaper articles that describe alleged corruption in connection with recall efforts in states other than Washington. Most of the out-of-state recall efforts involve systems different from Washington’s, in which a recall campaign is accompanied by an election to select the successor — a structure that does not exist in Washington. None of the articles describes a circumstance where, in a recall system like Washington’s, in which successors are appointed, a recall committee or its members had a relationship with the state entity charged with appointing a successor that would raise the specter of corruption.
7
The only evidence of an interaction between the Recall Committee and the Pierce County Council, the appointing body, is the State’s allegation that one Council member posted on the Recall Committee’s Facebook page a description of the procedures that would take place if the recall campaign were successful. There is no evidence that the Recall Committee would have any influence on the Council’s appointment decision upon a successful recall. For this reason, “[o]n this record, ... an exchange of political favors for uncoordinated expenditures remains a hypothetical possibility and nothing more.”
FEC v. Nat’l Conservative Political Action Comm.,
In sum, the State did not identify a sufficiently important interest to justify the $800 limit on contributions to recall committees. The first Winter factor— likelihood of success on the merits — thus supports issuance of the preliminary injunction. 8 , 9
*868
In so concluding, we recognize that the State has a strong interest in “help[ing] citizens make informed choices in the political marketplace.”
Citizens United,
2. Irreparable Harm, Balance of the Equities and the Public Interest
The district court properly exercised its discretion in concluding that the remaining Winter factors also support issuance of the injunction.
With respect to the second factor, irreparable harm, the district court correctly noted that “[t]he loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury” and that “harm is particularly irreparable where, as here, a plaintiff seeks to engage in political speech, as timing is of the essence in politics and [a] delay of even a day or two may be intolerable.”
Thalheimer,
Nor did the court err in concluding that the balance of equities and public interest favor an injunction. It was within the district court’s discretion to conclude that the “public interest in upholding free speech and association rights out-weighed the interest in continued enforcement of these campaign finance provisions” after weighing the relevant considerations. Id. at 1128-29.
IV. Conclusion
The district court properly granted the preliminary injunction prohibiting enforce *869 ment of the $800 contribution limit against the plaintiffs. 10
AFFIRMED.
Notes
. Formerly codified as Washington Revised Code § 42.17.640(3).
. Section 42.17A.405(3) states:
No person, other than a bona fide political party or a caucus political committee, may make contributions to a state official, a county official, a city official, or a public official in a special purpose district against whom recall charges have been filed, or to a political committee having the expectation of making expenditures in support of the recall of the state official, county official, city official, or public official in a special purpose district during a recall campaign that in the aggregate exceed eight hundred dollars if for a legislative office, county office, or city office, or one thousand six hundred dollars if for a special purpose district office or a state office other than a legislative office.
Wash. Rev.Code § 42.17A.405(3).
.Formerly codified as Washington Revised Code § 42.17.020(15)(c).
. The recall effort incurred debt that remains outstanding. We acknowledge the possibility that plaintiffs' ability to retire that debt may be hampered if the injunction is lifted and the $800 contribution limit imposed by the challenged statute is applied to plaintiffs. This is another reason why the appeal is not moot.
. Considering the matter sua sponte, we are also satisfied that the plaintiffs’ suit is ripe.
See Wolfson v. Brammer,
. We speculated in
Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce v. City of Long Beach,
. The State contends the district court abused its discretion by ruling on the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment without giving the State a greater opportunity to conduct discovery and develop the record, relying on Citizens for Clean Government. This argument is without merit. Citizens for Clean Government does not limit a district court’s authority to rule on a preliminary injunction, a decision that is necessarily based on an incomplete record. Here, the State never filed a request for specific, expedited discovery and, therefore, we cannot conclude that the district court abused its discretion by ruling on the injunction based on the evidence that was before it.
. Plaintiffs’ likelihood of success might be different if recall elections in Washington were accompanied by an election for the successor, as is the case in many states, and a recall committee coordinated its expenditures with one of the candidates for office. That circumstance would be similar to cases in which
*868
contribution limits have been upheld.
See, e.g., McConnell
v.
FEC,
Furthermore, as our analysis implies, the outcome might be different if there were evidence that contributions were being made with a "wink and a nod” from Council members indicating that a particular candidate would be appointed.
Long Beach,
. In a petition for rehearing, the State argues that allowing it to limit contributions to incumbent political officials opposing a recall, but prohibiting it from enforcing contribution limits against recall committees supporting the recall would lead to disproportionate influence by recall committees. The possibility that independent committees will make expenditures disproportionate to political candidates or incumbents, however, is simply a consequence of
Citizens United
that is now a feature of all political campaigns.
See Citizens United,
. We note that the district court issued a narrow injunction, which prohibits the enforcement of Wash. Rev.Code § 42.17A.405(3) only as to the plaintiffs in this proceeding. Nothing in our opinion should be construed as expanding the scope of that injunction.