MO Republican Party v. Charles G. Lamb

Committee; J. Michael improper Candidate s government as to render Reid, Reid; Appel Elaine and Tschee harmless. remarks lees/Cross-Appellants, Cannon, found the follow- In this court improper prejudicial: ing statements LAMB, In His Official Ca Charles G. world, ladies people in “There are bad pacity Director of the as Executive lucky where we gentlemen. We are Commission; Robert Missouri Ethics many as as live not to come contact Capacity Gardner, In His Official country. parts of the in other there of the Missouri Ethics Commis Chair Id. But still around here.” some there sion; Flood, In Her Patricia Official state- implication The tenor and Capacity of the Mis as Vice-Chair highly case are issue in this ments at Commission; Ethics Richard souri However, comparatively, similar. Adams, Spielbusch, Elaine Donald patent, more be- prejudice in this case is Gann, Greenwell, Mike In Their cause, refer- improper the singular unlike Capacity as Members of Official Cannon, government’s ence at issue Commission; Ethics permeated the entire improper references (Jay) Nixon, In W. His Offi Jeremiah such, similarly we closing argument. As Attorney Capacity cial as Missouri pervasive these references hold that Appellants/Cross-Appellees. General, jury an “gave the Cruz-Padilla’s status Nos. 00-2686. hook which improper convenient Appeals, Court of United States ... by calling hang guilty verdict Eighth Circuit. [Cruz-Padilla attention to the fact Id. at 1503. was] not local.” 9, 2000. Aug. Submitted: Sept. Filed: Moreover, opin- in this as noted earlier ion, object at trial to Cruz-Padilla failed to improper government’s arguments. court issued no

Consequently, mitigate the resul- instructions to

curative agree

tant therefore harm. We trial. is entitled to new

Cruz-Padilla decision of the

Accordingly, we affirm the

district court. PARTY, A

MISSOURI REPUBLICAN Committee; Party Pierce for

Political Committee;

Auditor, A Candidate Ellinger; Pierce; A. Marc

Charles Zahnd, Eric A Candidate

Citizens for Zahnd;

Committee; R. Lee Eric Reid, A

Keith; Elect Mike Citizens to

1071 Layton, facts, City, Robert tion James Jefferson of the held that there was (Jeremiah MO, Nixon argued (Jay)W. and no genuine dispute factual about the na- brief), for Maguffee, Appel- Paul A. on the monetary ture of the in- lants/Cross-Appellees. volved, because the candidates retained control over how the LaPierre, Louis, MO, money was to be D. Bruce St. ar- (W. spent. Schock, brief), agree We with the gued on district court. Bevis the for Appellees/Cross-Appellants. recognize We that there will be cases which the line between a contribution and BOWMAN, GIBSON, Before: JOHN R. expenditure coordinated will hard to ARNOLD, and MORRIS SHEPPARD draw, and we that concede that line Judges. Circuit particularly frequently be to difficult dis- ARNOLD, MORRIS SHEPPARD cern when the money ease involves that Judge. Circuit passes a party from to one of its candi- because, dates. enjoin That is partly This is suit to for enforcement reasons § presently Mo.Rev.Stat. 130.032.4 will appear, we believe that 130.032.7, § which limit the amount cash it is often difficult distinguish to and in-kind political par- contributions that here, from its candidates at all. But as the give ties may public to a candidate for noted, district court the candidates admit- office, provide penalties violating for that, ted although they discussed the use the limitations that the set. statutes The money with before (a plaintiffs political party, candidate com- passed them, to they were nevertheless mittees, office) and candidates for public spend free to as saw fit. It is this asserted that the statutes issue violated part freedom on the free under the first provides them with indepen- the kind of amendment. The district court refused to requires dence that tous characterize injunction issue an and this appeal ensued. money passed them as contribu- We reverse and with remand directions to matter as a of law. injunction the district court to enter an characterization, This as the rec- opinion. that is not with inconsistent because, ognize, important is to the case although not

I. has de- us, cided precise issue before it has complaint The in this set case out a decided that individuals series cash contributions that the Mis- limitation, subject despite the first Party souri Republican made other stake, amendment interests at see plaintiffs case, in this described the actions Valeo, 1, 20-23, 612, v. 424 U.S. 96 S.Ct. (the that the defendants members of the (1976) curiam), L.Ed.2d 669 (per while Missouri Ethics Commission and Mis- independent expenditures by par- souri attorney general) intended take not, ties are see Republican Colorado Fed- against plaintiffs because the contribu- eral Campaign tions exceeded law Committee those al- lows, Commission, injunction asked against Election 518 U.S. (1996). the enforcement of the statutes under 135 L.Ed.2d 795 proceed. which the defendants intended to Although directly these not cases do rule one, since it falls somewhere between plaintiffs argued to the district them, they pro- we think that nevertheless monetary expenditures guidance vide proper resolution of contributions, really issue were here as questions raised. We believe that the regularly term is used in cases of this kind, recent case of Nixon v. Shrink Missouri expendi- but rather were coordinated PAC, Government U.S. conjunction cooperation tures made in (2000), however, the candidates and their L.Ed.2d 886 committees. rejected The district court heavily that construc- which rely, the defendants is of alike, because, and become more so ence each other respect, in this limited value later, that one of the present the fact and common explain as to a coordinated we words, plaintiffs often, in this case in other They are front. it from Shrink Mis- distinguish serves other, from each virtually indistinguishable way. in a crucial PAC souri Government in merged way are a and their identities between them more dealings that makes II. symbiotic ones be- merely than transient present for important case The most entities. separate tween and distinct 20-21, 424 at 96 Buckley, U.S. purposes is unity purpose, their of and Because of a limitation on held that which S.Ct. parties and their identity the virtual of to candidates individuals’ candidates, say, in the easy it is not constitutional public office was “only a 424 96 imposed marginal Buckley, U.S. a limitation words such ability to 612, the contributor’s upon party’s restriction contribution political that a That was engage in free communication.” ba- underlying not communicate the “does it, a because, Court saw Supreme as the support.” contrary, To the a sis for the general expres- a serves as “contribution ideological party’s provides contribution candidate and his support for the sion of philosophical a and carries endorsement views, the un- not communicate but does contribu- imprimatur that an individual’s support,” id. at derlying basis for the not, properly and it cannot tion does thus A limitation on contribu- in called a “contribution” the same concluded, “in- tions, the therefore Court contributions at sense the individual political on ... little direct restraint volves party’s in Nor is a stake were. communication, permits symbolic for it candidate, in again to its contribution by a ... contribu- expression evidenced id., merely “symbolic a Buckley, words of tion,” id. a support; is more like expression” considerations sim- think that these We political statement others’ substantive same force when ply carry do not it, all of contributions are. As we see The main political party. is a contributor indicates that the first amendment to elect its object of a is from, different at stake here are measure, office, and, large in candidates to than, in those that were involved weightier speech candidates is its own of its Buckley. Federal Election Commis- Cf. political parties employ speech. While Federal Cam- Republican sion v. Colorado speak, principal way various methods to Committee, 213 F.3d 1227-28 paign themselves is they express in which (10th Cir.2000). In candidates. through of their fact, are often parties and their candidates egos. alter

virtual III. is there suggesting We are not and character of The nature correspondence always an exact one-to-one parties important are relevant to another parties. their candidates and between case, of this aspect of our consideration parties have their observa- Candidates and gov- namely, the kind of reason differences, in and there is truth ble justify ernment must advance order something to adage platform old that a is rights. amendment an intrusion first on, run are stand not to on: Candidates PAC, In Missouri Government Shrink par- But agents mouthpieces. not mere Supreme held Court support it. ties seek to field a team corruption of candi- preventing moreover, and frequently, Candidates sufficiently compelling served as a dates reason, party’s called their with excellent limit size of contributions reason to standard-bearers, frequent make action com- from individuals and in their appeal party principle; But, has Mr. Justice Thomas interactions, influ- mittees. that, observed, directly, how a easy it is to see but we think is too frail candidates, “corrupt” one of could its own justify burdening rationale to the sub since, unity general on account stantial speech rights free political par committed, main, purpose, they are ties that we have being identified as principles. aims and See the same Colo- jeopardy in this case. Colorado Re Cf. Campaign Republican rado Federal Com- publican Committee, Campaign mittee, U.S. at S.Ct. 2309 213 F.3d at 1231-32. J.). Thomas, it, (opinion of As we see recently observed threat corrupt will that, kind, in deciding cases of not a very candidate is realistic one. important keep in mind the “quan- suggest alternatively The defendants empirical tum of evidence to satisfy needed that preventing the circumvention of the heightened judicial scrutiny legislative limits on individual contributions can serve judgments vary up will with or down the justify regulating party to the size of con- novelty plausibility justification Buckley, tributions. See 424 U.S. at raised,” Shrink Missouri Government 35-36, 612; see also id. at 96 S.Ct. PAC, case, 906. In the this however, Buckley, upheld 612. a limita- wholly any record is devoid of evidence any tion on the total that amount one that limiting parties’ campaign contribu- person ground the could contribute on that tions will corruption either reduce keep it would individuals from circumvent- measurably decrease the of occa- number ing giving any the limits on to one candi- sions on which limitations on id. at individuals’ date. See 612. But challenged campaign contributions here the restriction is on the are circumvented. Since, party’s giving, indicated, and the defendants seek to for the reasons we think the it justify ground keep it on that would justifications that the advanced for the individuals from an run doing end around are, statutory limitations here relevant in limits on their own This giving. scheme context, the novel and particularly burdens the free plausible, we hold that challenged the Mis- parties in order control the activities of souri on cash limitations contributions are something someone else. This is quite unconstitutional. approved. different from what Buckley

Besides, the defendants admitted in IV. their in brief that case would be The district court allow refused' to the illegal an under law for individual plaintiffs complaint to file amended be- secretly agree proposed cause it that the believed amend- party pass the along would the individual’s ment respect raised issues in-kind contribution to candidate after that indi- complaint the original contributions already vidual had contributed the statuto- did not It true raise. that the amended contribution, ry maximum. Such a complaint adverted the likelihood that say, defendants would be treated under most, all, if not in-kind would contributions by Missouri law as a contribution the indi- actually be coordinated rath- vidual, not party. defendants sense; er than purest contributions already therefore have a mechanism true, and it is also as the place that deals with attempts individu- noted, original complaint empha- als to circumvent limits on their contribu- impending sized the enforcement efforts by using party as a mere by the with respect only defendants 441a(a)(8). § conduit. U.S.C. Limi- Cf. cash original contributions. But the com- might tations on spending have an plaint challenge did statutory Missouri’s attenuating indirect effect on secret “ear- par- limits on in-kind from contributions agreements marking” between individuals ties, political parties summary judgment and the materials agree- such because ments police hard to detect and contained relating evidence to those kinds Missouri, In Shrink therefore think We of contributions. recognized matter of this distinction fairly raise the the Court papers the case our view of limits on contribu- upholding Given Missouri’s in-kind contributions. limitations on case, namely, any person. See 120 S .Ct. tions made unconstitutional justices cash contributions Significantly, five at 903-04. face, given fact opinion for joined Justice Souter’s no basis have advanced defendants True, does not Shrink Missouri Court. the two which, purposes, for constitutional involving political speak directly to issues distinguished can be kinds of does, however, contributions. It context, we hold factual in the present continuing vitality of demonstrate in-kind contributions limits on Missouri’s out the standard we Buckley, and sets first amendment. offend the also apply here. must that, today asserts The court V. political parties, nature of special judgment therefore reverse We are more burden- on their contributions remand the case court and the district by indi- than limits on some Contributions incon- injunction that is not entry of an determina- supports The court viduals. opinion. sistent with rights of that the First Amendment tion from, and political parties “are different GIBSON, Judge, R. Circuit JOHN than, those that were involved weightier dissenting. concurring and ” that Buckley with the novel conclusion opinion to I in the court’s concur their candidates share political parties and payments by that it holds that extent identity.” While the court as- a “virtual were contribu- party to the candidates parties and candidates have “ob- serts that The candi- expenditures. and not and that there is not servable differences” money as spend the dates’ freedom to correspondence an exact between always money passed requires fit saw them, party/can- describe the goes on to contributions as characterized as them be ways: a relationship variety in a didate of law. matter “virtually indis- party and its candidate are deci- Supreme I Court’s agree that the and are “vir- from each other” tinguishable Valeo, 1, 96 424 U.S. Buckley sions v. whose “identities are egos” tual alter (1976) 612, (per cu- L.Ed.2d 659 S.Ct. way dealings in a that makes be- merged riam), Republican and Colorado merely more than transient tween them Election v. Federal Campaign Committee symbiotic separate between and dis- ones 2309, Commission, 604, 116 518 U.S. tergiversates tinct entities.” The (1996), provide guidance. 135 L.Ed.2d 795 description of this relation- it reaches for a differ, however, conclu- I with the court’s foundation, shifting ship. Upon this sion opinion. its entire court constructs present- from the situation distinguishable the court’s asser- apparent ed in and with no consensus on the There is Nixon relationship that the recent decision be- tion about the PAC, 528 Government Shrink Missouri political parties and candidates. tween 897, L.Ed.2d 886 (Jus- U.S. Republican plurality The Colorado (2000), limited value here. Souter) is of O’Connor, reject- Breyer, tices party “a and its argument ed the groundwork Buckley developed the i.e., identical, in a party, candidate are campaign constitutionality of analyzing the candidates,” sense, pointing out ‘is’its laws, con- distinguishing finance between and candidates dif- treats Congress concluding tributions and from by regulating contributions ferently impose limits less severe that contribution at other. 518 U.S. one First Amendment restrictions on Concurring dissenting, 424 U.S. expenditure limits. See joined Kennedy, opinion Chief in a Justice Justice section its entitled “General Scalia, Rehnquist and Justice observed Principles,” preced- id. there is “a constitutional tradition any ing specific provi- discussion political parties and their en- at issue in the placement sions case. This in joint activity,” gaging Amendment indicates that the Court intended set practical identity with “a of inter- along applicable forth universally precepts. Also during between the two an election. ests” telling is the fact that the Court discussed Id. at 116 S.Ct. 2309. Justice Thom- expenditure limits political parties im- as, concurring dissenting also and also mediately contrasting expenditure before joined by Rehnquist Chief Justice and Jus- contribution limits: Scalia, political argued party tice that a The expenditure limitations contained corrupt its candidate could because represent in the Act substantial rather “very aim ... is to party’s influence than merely theoretical restraints on the and, candidate’s stance issues if the quantity diversity reelected, takes office or is his candidate $1,000 speech. ceiling on spending .” votes Id. at 116 S.Ct. 2309. Justice clearly “relative to a identified candi- Stevens, joined by Ginsburg, Justice stated date,” (1970 608(e)(1) ed., § 18 U.S.C. in dissent: IV), Supp. appear would all exclude party unique' relationship A shares a candidates, groups except citizens and sponsors with the candidate it parties, and the institutional inextricably fates are press any from significant use of the interdependency linked. That creates a most effective modes of communication. special danger the—or Although persons expen- the Act’s limitations on who control —will influence it abuse the has over the candi- ditures campaign organizations and by power date virtue of to spend. its political parties provide substantially debate, greater for room discussion and 648, Id. at S.Ct. 116 2309. The various they would required have restrictions in expressions by today articulated the court Kennedy’s scope past congres- come closest to Justice observa- of a number of tions, but his that a party conclusion sional and Presidential campaigns its in engage joint activity candidates operate to campaigning would constrain share interests falls short of the court’s by who candidates raise sums in excess identical, virtually conclusion are spending of the ceiling. alter or egos, way virtual in some merged. By upon with contrast- a limitation Regardless of of nature the relation- political expression, for expenditures ship, party contributions to can upon limitation that any amount one regulated. Although Buckley upheld person group may contribute to a on by limits contributions individuals political candidate or committee entails committees, political parties, not political only a marginal upon restriction the con- analysis way its framed in was that leads ability to in engage tributor’s free com- applies the conclusion that it to all munication. contributions, no matter what their source. (footnotes 19-21, Id. at 96 S.Ct. 612 omit- Buckley addressed the of constitutionality ted). The of argument order the Court’s political various restrictions on contribu- of suggests that its discussion contribution expenditures contained in the is fully applicable politi- limits to limits on Act, Campaign Federal Election an “intri- parties. cal statutory adopted cate by scheme Con- Republican provides further Colorado gress applfies] ... all broadly to support Buckley’s the conclusion of phases and all in participants the elec- analysis applies plurality here. held 12-13, The process.” tion 424 U.S. at 96 S.Ct. added). (emphasis prohibited ap- 612 that the Amendment The Court dis- expenditure cussed contribution and Campaign limits Election plying 1076 candidate, rupt own but Missouri does expenditures its

Act’s on limit In- expenditure ground. to “an its limits on that justify not coordi without independently, has made stead, explains that the limits deter eva- Re any nation candidate.” Colorado sion individual contribution limits.1 at 116 S.Ct. 2309. publican, 518 U.S. Supreme plurality upheld A of the Court The the constitutional opinion stressed on contributions to multicandidate limits and ex difference between contributions originated Buckley. political the limits fur penditures committees because The 2309. See id. at preventing actual or thered interest emphasis the “constitutional plurality’s on by limiting apparent corruption “circum in acted ly fact” significant very of the on contribu vention limitations dependently, 116 S.Ct. id. at upheld Buckley.” tions that Court assumption that an demonstrates Ass’n v. Federal Elec Medical California political par coordinated Comm’n, 182, 197-98, 453 U.S. tion ties, which are treated as (1981). 2712, 69 L.Ed.2d 567 Writ Act, likely under would be more ing con separately, Justice Blaekmun also scrutiny. constitutional Cal withstand Cf. “that cluded contributions to multicandi- _ Jones, Party v. Democratic ifornia U.S. _, _, may committees be limited date 2402, 2415, preventing ... evasion of as means J., (2000) concur (Kennedy, L.Ed.2d 502 to a limitations on contributions candi (five ring) members Court campaign his date or authorized committee position that Congress “subscribe upheld Buckley.” Id. or a limit the amount State Buckley, 424 U.S. See also party spends in direct collaboration with $25,000 (upholding a overall limit S.Ct. 612 for elected of preferred candidate total contributions made individu .”). fice prevent al acted to evasion of It thus that the constitutional evident to a partic limit on contributions $1000 contributions and ex- distinction between ular candidate held consti penditures applies political party money. tutional). speech rights free greater free indi- justification con- party Missouri’s Speech, and committees. viduals nor implau- tribution limits is neither novel all, speech, by expressed after is whether in both and sible: California by group convey a to a one or formed Medical, accepted pre- Court viewpoint. party con- common Limits on a venting evasion of constitutional limit as subject are to same level of tributions in- sufficiently important governmental a scrutiny politi- on limits individual The on terest. court’s insistence evidence cal committee contributions. to runs to support justification counter contribution limits at issue should The and 'to Shrink Mis- these decisions if they closely are drawn to upheld decision, souri which held Missouri’s sufficiently important interest. meet a See justified by impor- individual limits are Mo., The Shrink 904. corruption preventing tant interest perceives what it be the lack of relies on appearance corruption. of See sufficiently important interest hold If S.Ct. at there is sufficient evi- 905-08. limits are The unconstitutional. support court doubts that a can cor- dence individual contribution argues positions. briefly 1. also This is a variation on contributors’ n public's That.is, perception address limits ruption argument.' appear- cor- the evasion large that occurs when contributions may corruption arise if individuals ance political parties, political parties are made to using polit- evade contribution limits can candidates, large make contributions to party as ical a conduit. large the candidates’ decisions mirror prevent corruption limits enacted to fol- corruption, logically COMPANY,

appearance SECURA INSURANCE Company, Appellee, lows that there is sufficient evidence a Mutual pre- a contribution limit enacted to support of the individual limits. vent evasion SAUNDERS, Appellant. J.R. The court relies on its conclusion No. 99-2595. political parties different more have speech rights than important free individu- Appeals, United States als to discount Missouri’s interest in deter- Eighth Circuit.

ring evasion of its individual contribution Submitted: June 2000. by a limits. Because contributions made political party no different contri- Sept. Filed: other butions made individuals or unfounded.

groups, reliance is is lim- remaining issue whether the closely to meet govern-

its are drawn Missouri,

ment’s interest. Under Shrink

a contribution limit will stand unless

“so radical effect as to render ineffective, of a

association drive the sound notice,

candidate’s voice below level of pointless.” Id. at render

909. There is no evidence the record to

support conclusion that Missouri’s limits creat- contributions have system “a suppressed political

ed such

advocacy.” Id. Because Missouri’s that a party cash contributions closely’drawn

make to candidate are sufficiently important.governmen-

meet a interest,

tal do violate the

Amendment. judg-

I would affirm court’s

ment.2 my analysis, in-kind are con- The court holds that limits on in-kind Under Amendment, offend stitutionally valid. passed upon by issue not court.

Case Details

Case Name: MO Republican Party v. Charles G. Lamb

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Date Published: Sep 11, 2000

Citation: 227 F.3d 1070

Docket Number: 00-1773, 00-2686

Court Abbreviation: 8th Cir.