Washington: Court Rules Contribution Limit for Ballot Measure Committees UnconstitutionalBopp, Coleson & Bostrom PRESS RELEASE Court Rules Contribution Limit for Ballot Measure Committees Unconstitutional “Family PAC” wanted to make advertisements that would encourage voters in Washington State to vote “Yes” on a question on their ballot that would support traditional family values. To do that, Family PAC wanted to raise contributions so that it would have money to make its ads. However, Washington law banned contributions greater than $5,000 during the twenty-one days before the election—the very time period when many people are most inclined to listen to political ads. A donor offered Family PAC a large sum of money to fund their advertisements, but Family PAC was not able to accept the donation because of Washington’s law. Washington law also requires groups like Family PAC to publically disclose the names and addresses of donors giving more than $25, and also publically disclose information about the employers of donors giving more than $100. Family PAC challenged the $5,000 contribution limit and the low thresholds for disclosure in court. Family PAC claimed that the First Amendment protects the right to give and receive contributions, and that the Supreme Court has previously ruled that contributions to “ballot measure committees,” like Family PAC, cannot be limited. It also explained that while disclosure of contributions and donors is generally good, Washington’s $25 and $100 thresholds were too low and actually discourage people from donating to political causes. Last Wednesday, a federal court ruled that the $5,000 contribution limit is unconstitutional. The decision said that the Supreme Court’s recent Citizens United decision makes plain that limits on contributions to political groups and limits on expenditures by them are “bad.” Applying that reasoning, the Court said that Washington’s limit on contributions to ballot measure committees like Family PAC is unconstitutional. But the Court upheld the $25 and $100 reporting thresholds, ruling those were constitutional because disclosure is “good.” James Bopp, Jr., lead attorney for Family PAC, commented, “The First Amendment gives citizens the right to associate together to engage in political speech. That includes the freedom to make contributions in support of political causes they want to advance. Washington’s law was interfering with that right. Now the people of Washington will be able to do what the First Amendment allows and protects.” However, Mr. Bopp was disappointed in the Court’s ruling that the $25 and $100 reporting thresholds were constitutional. “Disclosure of large contributions is what’s helpful to people. Nobody cares who gave $25 to a campaign. All this law does is discourage small donors from giving, because nobody wants their names and addresses publically disclosed.” Mr. Bopp said that Family PAC will appeal that part of the decision. The case is Family PAC v. McKenna, No. 09-CV-5662 (W.D. Wash.). James Bopp, Jr. has a national federal and state election law practice. He is an attorney with Bopp, Coleson & Bostrom and General Counsel for the James Madison Center for Free Speech. He is also a former Co-Chairman of the Election Law Subcommittee of the Federalist Society.
|