Constitutional Law Attorney John Eastman wins major first amendment case at Ninth Circuit

The John Eastman for AG Campaign: “Eastman Victory Overturns Portion of Long Beach Campaign Finance Ordinance Which Unconstitutionally Limited Participation in Independent Expenditure Campaigns.”

Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce v. City of Long Beach, No. 07-56190 (9th Cir. Apr. 30, 2010) (Before: Alex Kozinski, Chief Judge, Dorothy W. Nelson and Kim McLane Wardlaw, Circuit Judges.) (Opinion by Wardlaw)

Excerpt:

“[I]t is our law and our tradition that more speech, not less, is the governing rule” under the First Amendment. Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S. Ct. 876, 911 (2010). “More speech” often means “more money.” “This is because virtually every means of communicating ideas in today’s mass society requires the expenditure of money.” Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 19 (1976). Therefore, “[a] restriction on the amount of money a person or group can spend on political communication during a campaign necessarily reduces the quantity of expression by restricting the number of issues discussed, the depth of their exploration, and the size of the audience reached.” Id. That political spending is constitutionally protected “speech” has become a “cardinal tenet” of the Supreme Court’s campaign finance jurisprudence. Emily’s List v. FEC, 581 F.3d 1, 5 (D.C. Cir. 2009).

We must decide whether the Long Beach Campaign Reform Act (“LBCRA”), which prohibits “persons” from making any independent expenditures if they receive contributions above certain amounts, is constitutional as applied to the Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce (“Chamber”) and its affiliated political action committees (“Chamber PACs”). Because the Chamber lacks standing, and because the LBCRA does not withstand scrutiny as applied to the Chamber PACs, we vacate in part and reverse in part the district court’s judgment that the LBCRA is unconstitutional as applied to the Chamber but constitutional as applied to the Chamber PACs.