|
No. 00-56444
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
__________
THE LINCOLN CLUB OF ORANGE COUNTY, et al.,
Plaintiffs/Appellants,
v.
CITY OF IRVINE, CALIFORNIA,
Defendant/Appellee
__________
ON APPEAL FROM THE U. S. DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
APPELLANTS' REPLY BRIEF
Patrick J. Manshardt, Of Counsel,
INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS FOUNDATION
One Bunker Hill Bldg., 8th Floor
601 West Fifth Street
Los Angeles, CA 90071
(213) 688-4045
John C. Eastman
THE CLAREMONT INSTITUTE CENTER
FOR CONSTITUTIONAL JURISPRUDENCE
c/o Chapman Univ. School of Law
One University Drive
Orange, California 92866
(714) 628-2587
Manuel S. Klausner
LAW OFFICES OF MANUEL S. KLAUSNER, P.C.
One Bunker Hill Bldg., 8th Floor
601 West Fifth Street
Los Angeles, CA 90071
(213) 617-0414
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS i
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ii
INTRODUCTION 1
ARGUMENT 4
I. Irvine's Reliance on Contribution-to-Candidates
Cases Is Misplaced With Respect to the Applicable Standard of Review
In This Case Involving Restrictions on Contributions to Independent
Expenditure Committees. 4
II. Irvine's "Evidence"
of a Constitutionally Valid Purpose Was Disputed Below and Does
Not Support Irvine's Asserted Purpose, In Any Event. 10
III. Even If Irvine Had An Anti-Corruption
Or An Anti-Evasion Purpose, IMC § 1-2-404(B) Does Not Further
Those Purposes. 14
CONCLUSION 19
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Arkansas Right to Life State Political Action Comm. v. Butler,
29 F. Supp. 2d 540 (W.D. Ark. 1998) 9, 12
Berry v. Valence Tech., Inc., 175 F.3d 699
(9th Cir.1999) 11
Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) passim
California Medical Ass'n v. FEC, 453 U.S. 182 (1981) passim
Citizens Against Rent Control v. City of Berkeley,
454 U.S. 290 (1981) passim
Citizens for Responsible Gov't State PAC v. Buckley,
60 F. Supp. 2d 1066 (D. Colo. 1999), vacated after legislative
action, Citizens for Responsible Gov't State PAC v. Davidson,
236 F.3d 1174 (10th Cir. Dec. 26, 2000) 9, 14
Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Comm. v. FEC,
518 U.S. 604 (1996) 17
Committee of Cent. American Refugees v. I.N.S.,
795 F.2d 1434 (9th Cir. 1986) 8
Commonwealth of Kentucky v. Martin,
2000 WL 1675747 (Ky. App. Nov 09, 2000) 14
Dale M. ex rel. Alice M. v. Board of Educ.,
237 F.3d 813 (7th Cir., Jan 12, 2001) 11
Day v. Holahan, 34 F.3d 1356 (8th Cir. 1994),
cert. denied, 119 S.Ct. 510 (1998) 8
Federal Election Comm. v. National Conservative
Political Action Comm.,
470 U.S. 480 (1985) 10, 15, 17, 20
Florida Right to Life v. Mortham,
1998 WL 1735137 (M.D. Fla., Sept. 29, 1998) 19
Gard v. State Elections Bd., 456 N.W.2d 809 (Wis. 1990) 14
Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976) 18
Guam v. Yang, 850 F.2d 507, 511 (9th Cir. 1988) 7
Harris v. Wright, 93 F.3d 581 (9th Cir. 1996) 19
Kentucky Right to Life, Inc. v. Terry,
108 F.3d 637 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 860 (1997) 14, 19,
20
Landell v. Sorrell, 118 F. Supp.2d 459 (D.Vt. 2000) 5
M/V American Queen v. San Diego Marine Constr. Corp.,
708 F.2d 1483, 1491 (9th Cir.1983) 8
Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188 (1977) 18, 19
Matter of Vandelinde, 366 S.E.2d 631 (W.Va. 1988) 19
Mintz v. Barthelemy, 722 F.Supp. 273 (E.D. La. 1989),
aff'd, 891 F.2d 520 (5th Cir. 1989) 19
Mott v. FEC, 494 F. Supp. 131 (D.D.C. 1980) 19
Mount Healthy v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 (1977) 15
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) 15
North Carolina Right to Life, Inc. v. Bartlett, 168 F.3d 705 (4th
Cir. 1999) 5
North Carolina Right to Life, Inc. v. Leake,
108 F. Supp. 2d 498 (E.D.N.C. 2000) 9
Prestin v. Mobil Oil Corp., 741 F.2d 268 (9th Cir. 1984) 8
Righeimer v. City of Huntington Beach,
No. SACV94-676-AHS (C.D. Cal. Oct. 13, 1994) 7, 8, 17
Robi v. Reed, 173 F.3d 736 (9th Cir.1999) 11
Russell v. Burris, 146 F.3d 563 (8th Cir. 1998) 8
San Franciscans for Sensible Gov't v. Renne,
No. 99-02456 (N.D. Cal., Sept. 8, 1999), aff'd,
No. 99-16995 (9th Cir. Oct. 20, 1999) (unpublished) 7, 8, 17, 20
Schenck v. City of Hudson, 208 F.3d 215 (6th Cir. 2000). 4
Service Employees Int'l Union v. FPPC, 955 F.2d 1312 (9th Cir. 1992)
5
State of Alaska v. Alaska Civil Liberties Union,
978 P.2d 597, 625 (Alaska 1999) 14, 19
United States v. Amlani, 111 F.3d 705 (9th Cir. 1997) 8
United States v. Heuer, 916 F.2d 1457 (9th Cir. 1990) 8
United States v. Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, 235 F.3d 429 (9th Cir.
2000) 11
United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996) 13
Vannatta v. Kiesling, 151 F.3d 1215 (9th Cir. 1998) 5
Washington State Republican Party v. Washington State Pub.
Disclosure Comm'n, 4 P.3d 808 (Wash. 2000) 5
Statutes and Rules
Cal. Govt. Code § 81001 13
Cal. Govt. Code § 82031 15
F.R.A.P. 8(a)(2) 4
Irvine Municipal Code § 1-2-402 12, 16
Irvine Municipal Code § 1-2-403 13
Irvine Municipal Code § 1-2-404(A) 1
Irvine Municipal Code § 1-2-404(B) passim
Ninth Circuit Rule 21(c) 8
Ninth Circuit Rule 36-1 7
Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 7
INTRODUCTION
In Irvine municipal elections, wealthy candidates may contribute
an unlimited amount of money to their own campaigns, and the record
evidence below showed that candidates have in the past contributed
upwards of $50,000 dollars to their own campaigns. Irvine Municipal
Code § 1-2-404(A). Similarly, wealthy individuals may expend
an unlimited amount of their own funds in independent expenditures
advocating the election or defeat of Irvine municipal candidates.
Joint Statement of Uncontroverted Facts ("JS") 14 (ER
33). But if two or more people of more modest means decide to pool
their resources in order to make independent expenditures in those
same elections, Irvine Municipal Code § 1-2-404(B) prohibits
them from contributing more than $320 each to that collaborative
effort. This, according to Irvine, to prevent quid pro quo corruption
of candidates, despite the fact that the Supreme Court has expressly
held that unlimited independent expenditures themselves do not implicate
such concerns sufficiently to warrant restrictions on this core
political speech protected by the First Amendment.
Irvine claims that it enacted the ordinance at issue here in response
to citizen concerns about quid pro quo corruption, but the documentary
evidence upon which it relies describes such concerns only with
respect to direct contributions to candidates, not with respect
to contributions to independent expenditure committees, about which
Irvine concedes that it has no evidence of any quid pro quo corruption.
The simple fact is that after Irvine imposed restrictions on contributions
to candidates, it wanted to level the new playing field it had created
by extending those limitations to independent expenditure committees.
Contrary to Irvine's assertion, Appellee's Br. at 4 n.1, the documentary
evidence clearly demonstrates this impermissible purpose, noting
that some members of the Campaign Reform Committee appointed by
the City Council objected to IMC § 1-2-404(B) because "it
would not level the playing field absolutely." ER 46 (emphasis
added, depicting word omitted from Irvine's selective quotation
of the document). The proponents of the ordinance concluded: "But
for now this ordinance comes as close to leveling the playing field
as we can attain within the law." Id. at 47. It is simply disingenuous
to claim that the ordinance's purpose was not to level the playing
field.
Before responding to Irvine's arguments on the merits, The Lincoln
Club needs to address two other erroneous statements in Irvine's
Statement of Facts and Statement of the Case that particularly warrant
response. First, The Lincoln Club has never "conceded the Ordinance's
constitutionality," Appellee's Br. at 6. The Lincoln Club did
not participate in Irvine municipal elections in 1996-it does not
participate in every municipal election every election cycle. It
sought to participate in the 1998 election, but was informed by
the City Attorney that IMC § 1-2-404(B) barred it from making
independent expenditures once it had accepted contributions in excess
of the specified limit. That statement by the City of Irvine, which
made clear that the The Lincoln Club as currently constituted could
not make any independent expenditures in Irvine municipal elections,
is one of the bases for the present action, see Complaint 29, 40-42
(ER 7, 9). This action was filed within the applicable one-year
statute of limitations and more than a year before the next election
at which The Lincoln Club might have sought to exercise its core
First Amendment rights in Irvine elections. The suggestion that
The Lincoln Club somehow slept on its rights, therefore, or that
the failure of anyone to challenge the ordinance back in 1995 when
it was first enacted essentially immunizes it from a constitutional
challenge, is simply not accurate.
Second, The Lincoln Club never "conceded" that "the
Ordinance in no way restricts the amount Plaintiff may spend as
an independent expenditure to support or oppose any candidate for
elective office in Irvine," as Irvine asserts. Appellee's Br.
at 7. Quite the contrary, The Lincoln Club has consistently maintained
that the ordinance prohibits it from making any independent expenditures
in Irvine municipal elections, simply by virtue of the fact that
its annual dues exceed the contribution limit specified in the ordinance.
Nor did The Lincoln Club "admi[t] the feasibility of re-structuring
its organization" in order to fall under the contribution cap,
as Irvine asserts. Appellee's Br. at 34. Irvine selectively quotes
from the record. In response to the Court's question whether there
was some impediment to The Lincoln Club simply forming other entities,
counsel for The Lincoln Club responded:
Legally, no, you Honor. Practically, there is a very big impediment.
And one of reasons the Lincoln Club is established is, they participate
in a number of Orange County elections, as they participate in elections
elsewhere in the state. And to set up a separate committee for every
city, for every election cycle, and then try and go back to the
same contributors time and time and time again, and instead of giving
us a $2,000 check this year give us $50 check written out to the
Irvine Committee and a $50 check written out to the Orange Committee;
logistically that's an impossible task.
Appellee's Supplemental Excepts of Record ("SER") at 9-10.
Moreover, The Lincoln Club pointed out that even if such a restructuring
was logistically possible, the creation of separate corporations
would not alter the fact that the speech and association rights
of the existing entity were being infringed. Id. at 10.
Finally, Irvine's Statement of the Case, Appellee's Br. at 9, contains
an additional error of a more technical nature but one that is nevertheless
important, given the weight Irvine erroneously ascribes to an interim
order by the motions panel of this Court at a prior stage of this
case. The Lincoln Club did not appeal the District Court's denial
of its motion for a preliminary injunction pending appeal. Instead,
it filed a new motion for preliminary injunction pending appeal
in this Court, as it was entitled to do under F.R.A.P. 8(a)(2).
The motions panel mistakenly treated the motion is if it were an
appeal from the District Court's order, reviewable on an abuse of
discretion standard. The Lincoln Club did not move for reconsideration
because by that point the November 7, 2000 election was too imminent
for The Lincoln Club to have mounted an effective independent expenditures
campaign even if the motions panel had granted a preliminary injunction
pending appeal upon a motion for reconsideration. This Court has
therefore never "expressly rejected Plaintiff's arguments on
the merits," as Irvine claims. Appellee's Br. at 10. See Schenck
v. City of Hudson, 208 F.3d 215 (6th Cir. 2000).
ARGUMENT
I.
Irvine's Reliance on Contribution-to-Candidates Cases Is Misplaced
With Respect to the Applicable Standard of Review In This Case Involving
Restrictions on Contributions to Independent Expenditure Committees.
Defendant/Appellee City of Irvine begins its plea for a "heightened
intermediate" rather than a "strict" level of scrutiny
by erroneously asserting that the Supreme Court has "consistently"
held that "the constitution treats contributions differently
than expenditures." Appellee's Br. 10-11 (emphasis added);
see also id. at 14 (describing the precedent as "uniform").
While the Supreme Court has consistently subjected restrictions
on contributions to candidates to the slightly lower level of scrutiny,
it has subjected restrictions on contributions to independent expenditure
committees, such as those at issue here, to strict, "exacting"
scrutiny. Citizens Against Rent Control v. City of Berkeley, 454
U.S. 290, 294, 298 (1981). The "bright line" drawn by
the Supreme Court, therefore, is not between contributions and expenditures,
as Irvine urges, but between restrictions on contributions to candidates
and other kinds of campaign finance restrictions.
All but one of the Supreme Court cases relied upon by Irvine involved
restrictions on contributions to candidates. The remaining case
upon which Irvine relies, California Medical Association v. FEC,
453 U.S. 182, 196-97 (1981) ("CMA"), was only a plurality
opinion (a fact that Irvine fails to note). Justice Blackmun, who
cast the dispositive fifth vote in the case, expressly rejected
the plurality's claim that contributions to non-candidate committees
were merely "attenuated speech" entitled to less First
Amendment protection.
The only Supreme Court case involving restrictions on contributions
to independent expenditure committees is Citizens Against Rent Control,
which is why The Lincoln Club referred to the case in its opening
brief as the Supreme Court decision most directly on point. Irvine
finds that characterization "curious" because the case
involved ballot initiatives rather than candidate elections, but
Irvine utterly fails to explain why that fact has anything to do
with the standard of review. The infringement of associational rights
in that case and this is the same; the effect on expenditures is
the same; indeed, the entire character of the first amendment interests
is the same, which is what determines the applicable standard of
review. The fact that Citizens Against Rent Control involved ballot
measure elections rather than candidate elections is at most relevant
only to whether the government's compelling interest in avoiding
quid pro quo corruption of candidates is implicated; it has nothing
to do with whether the restriction should be allowed if the government
offers only a less compelling justification.
Several lower courts have followed Citizens Against Rent Control
and strictly scrutinized restrictions on contributions to committees
making independent expenditures in candidate elections despite the
fact that Citizens Against Rent Control involved a ballot measure
election restriction. In Righeimer v. City of Huntington Beach,
the District Court for the Central District of California held that
a Huntington Beach ordinance restricting contributions to independent
expenditure committees was subject to strict scrutiny, and explicitly
cited Citizens Against Rent Control as the basis for its holding.
No. SACV94-676-AHS (C.D. Cal. Oct. 13, 1994) (Order Denying Motion
to Dismiss, at 2, citing Citizens Against Rent Control, 454 U.S.
at 294) (attached to Appellants' Opening Brief as Exhibit B). The
District Court for the Northern District of California has gone
even further, holding in San Franciscans for Sensible Gov't v. Renne
that "making contributions to PACs . . . which make only independent
expenditures . . . is highly protected speech and may not be regulated."
No. 99-02456 (N.D. Cal., Sept. 8, 1999) (Order Granting Plaintiffs'
Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, at 16, attached to Appellants'
Opening Brief as Ex. C), aff'd, No. 99-16995 (9th Cir. Oct. 20,
1999) (unpublished).
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has also adopted this position:
"State-enforced limits on contributions to political action
committees stifle 'not only free political speech, but also free
political association,' and are reviewed according to a strict scrutiny
standard." Russell v. Burris, 146 F.3d 563, 571 (8th Cir. 1998)
(quoting Day v. Holahan, 34 F.3d 1356, 1365 (8th Cir. 1994)), cert.
denied, 119 S.Ct. 510 (1998)). And, relying on Justice Blackmun's
opinion in CMA, the District Court for the Western District of Arkansas
struck down a $500 limit on contributions to independent expenditure
committees after subjecting it to strict scrutiny. Arkansas Right
to Life State Political Action Comm. v. Butler, 29 F. Supp. 2d 540,
544-46 (W.D. Ark. 1998); see also Citizens for Responsible Gov't
State PAC v. Buckley, 60 F. Supp. 2d 1066, 1075-76 (D. Colo. 1999)
(subjecting restriction on contributions to committees making candidate-related
expenditures to strict scrutiny, citing, inter alia, Citizens Against
Rent Control), vacated after legislative action, Citizens for Responsible
Gov't State PAC v. Davidson, 236 F.3d 1174 (10th Cir. Dec. 26, 2000).
More fundamentally, the Irvine ordinance prohibits The Lincoln Club
from making any independent expenditures, and there is no dispute
that the Supreme Court has consistently applied strict scrutiny
to expenditure limitations. The parties acknowledged in the Joint
Statement of Undisputed Facts that the "text" of the ordinance
limited contributions, JS 13 (ER 33), but both parties elsewhere
in that same Joint Statement acknowledged that the effect of the
ordinance was to prevent The Lincoln Club from making any independent
expenditures in Irvine municipal elections. JS 9, 27, 28 (ER 32,
35-36). The Irvine ordinance does not prohibit The Lincoln Club
from accepting contributions in excess of the proscribed amount-something
The Lincoln Club has done every year since the ordinance was enacted.
Rather, the Irvine ordinance prohibits The Lincoln Club from making
independent expenditures simply because its annual dues are larger
than the ordinance's limit, dues that are collected long before
any candidate has announced his candidacy for an Irvine municipal
office or before The Lincoln Club has decided to participate in
the Irvine election. The effect of the Irvine ordinance is therefore
more than just a restriction on expenditures; it is an outright
prohibition, in the circumstances presented here, and as such is
subject to strict scrutiny. See, e.g., Federal Election Comm. v.
National Conservative Political Action Comm., 470 U.S. 480, 498
(1985) ("NCPAC"); see also Righeimer, Order Denying Motion
to Dismiss, at 3 (subjecting similar Huntington Beach ordinance
to strict scrutiny because the "effect" of the ordinance
was "to restrict the independent expenditures" that Plaintiffs
desired to make).
Finally, Irvine simply misreads The Lincoln Club's opening brief
when it contends that The Lincoln Club "concedes" that
"less than strict scrutiny" is the appropriate standard
in this case. The only thing that The Lincoln Club conceded is that
Irvine's ordinance fails even under the lesser, though still rigorous,
standard of review. As described more fully below, Irvine offered
no evidence of a permissible purpose, and even if we can merely
assume one of the two purposes Irvine now claims, the restriction
on contributions to independent expenditure committees does not
further either purpose at all.
II. Irvine's "Evidence" of a Constitutionally
Valid Purpose Was Disputed Below and Does Not Support Irvine's Asserted
Purpose, In Any Event.
Irvine misunderstands The Lincoln Club's evidentiary argument. The
Lincoln Club does not dispute that avoiding corruption and its appearance
have been held by the Supreme Court to be sufficiently compelling
governmental interests to sustain restrictions on political speech.
Rather, The Lincoln Club simply asserts that Irvine had no such
purpose when it enacted Section 1-2-404(B), or that at the very
least the record evidence demonstrates that there is a material
dispute about Irvine's purpose, especially when that evidence is
viewed in the light most favorable to The Lincoln Club. United States
v. Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, 235 F.3d 429, 432 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing
Berry v. Valence Tech., Inc., 175 F.3d 699 (9th Cir.1999)).
Irvine concedes that it was unaware of any instances of quid pro
quo corruption which served as the basis for the Ordinance at issue
here. JS 29 (ER 36). Thus, unlike the actual examples of corruption
that supported the restrictions on contributions to candidates upheld
in Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), the concern with quid pro
quo corruption resulting from contributions to independent expenditure
committees that Irvine has asserted in this litigation is but "an
illusory one." See Buckley, 424 U.S. at 27; see also Butler,
29 F. Supp. 2d at 546 (requiring "'demonstrable' evidence in
the record . . . that large contributions to independent expenditure
committees has attributed to actual or perceived corruption").
Moreover, Irvine's own documents demonstrate conclusively that Irvine's
purpose was to "level the playing field" in Irvine municipal
elections, not to address real or perceived quid pro quo corruption.
See ER 47 ("this ordinance comes as close to leveling the field
as we can attain"); ER 42 (descrying the ability of independent
expenditure committees "to disproportionately influence an
election"); id. ("our Ordinance restores the balance of
influence"). What is more, this leveling-the-playing-field
purpose is the only purpose actually codified in Irvine's Campaign
Financing Law. See IMC § 1-2-402 (ER 13) (purpose is to "ensure
an environment . . . wherein all candidates for elective office
are placed on an equal plan (sic) relative to the amount of campaign
contributions received by them, and further to ensure that the amount
contributed by any person does not materially influence the outcome
of any election"). The Supreme Court in Buckley soundly rejected
such a purpose as grounds for infringing First Amendment rights.
424 U.S. at 48-49. And the Supreme Court in United States v. Virginia,
518 U.S. 515, 535-536 (1996), soundly rejected governmental attempts
to generate post-hoc litigation rationalizations for actions in
fact differently grounded.
Irvine also asserts that it had a purpose to prevent the evasion
of existing campaign finance laws. Again, neither the codified statutory
purpose or anything in the evidentiary record supports such a claim.
Moreover, Irvine mischaracterizes the "anti-evasion" purpose
that has been recognized by the Supreme Court. The anti-evasion
purpose that has been recognized is merely a corollary to the anti-corruption
purpose: Restrictions on contributions to committees that in turn
contribute to candidates have been upheld in order to prevent contributors
from evading the candidate contribution limits by funneling additional
funds to the candidates through the intermediary committees. CMA,
453 U.S. at 199 (holding that a limitation on contributions to multi-candidate
committees was "an appropriate means by which Congress could
seek to protect the integrity of the contribution restrictions upheld
by [the] Court in Buckley" (emphasis added)); Kentucky Right
to Life, Inc. v. Terry, 108 F.3d 637, 649 (6th Cir.), cert. denied,
522 U.S. 860 (1997) (describing anti-evasion purpose as a concern
that "unscrupulous individuals could pass unlimited amounts
of cash to permanent committees with the understanding that those
funds would be disbursed directly to specific candidates");
State of Alaska v. Alaska Civil Liberties Union, 978 P.2d 597, 625
(Alaska 1999); Gard v. State Elections Bd., 456 N.W.2d 809, 820
(Wis. 1990) (upholding aggregate limit as "necessary to prevent
PACs from circumventing the other contribution limits by passing
money through party-related committees" to candidates).
The Irvine ordinance at issue here restricts only contributions
to independent expenditure committees, which by definition do not
funnel contributions to candidates. See Cal. Govt. Code § 82031.
The "circumvention" concern expressed in Irvine's documents,
see ER 41, is therefore not a concern that contributors are finding
ways to funnel money to candidates, but that they are finding ways
to put more money into an election independent of candidates than
the City thinks is appropriate. That is a leveling-the-playing-field
purpose, and it is constitutionally impermissible. See Buckley,
424 U.S. at 48-49 (quoting New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S.
254, 266, 269 (1964)). Indeed, under Irvine's broad reading of the
anti-evasion rationale, independent expenditures themselves, whether
by committees or by individuals, would equally "evade"
Irvine's campaign finance laws, yet the Supreme Court has expressly
ruled that limits on independent expenditures are unconstitutional.
NCPAC, 470 U.S. at 498; Buckley, 424 U.S. at 47.
Irvine's resort to Mount Healthy v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 (1977),
and its progeny does not alter this conclusion, even assuming that
factually distinguishable case applies here. Mount Healthy merely
held that the existence of a constitutionally impermissible motive
does not automatically doom a governmental action. Because The Lincoln
Club offered evidence of an impermissible purpose, see IMC §
1-2-402; see also ER 41-47, Mount Healthy's further holding is relevant:
Irvine had to come forward with admissible evidence of a permissible
purpose, and it must prove that it would have taken the same action
absent the impermissible level-the-playing-field motive. Mount Healthy,
429 U.S. at 286-87. Because the only evidence Irvine offered demonstrates
only an impermissible level-the-playing-field purpose, Irvine has
not come close to meeting that burden.
III. Even If Irvine Had An Anti-Corruption
Or An Anti-Evasion Purpose, IMC § 1-2-404(B) Does Not Further
Those Purposes.
Most fundamentally, even if Irvine's ordinance is to be reviewed
under the slightly-less-than-strict scrutiny reserved for assessing
restrictions on contributions to candidates, and even if Irvine
actually had a purpose of avoiding corruption and the appearance
of corruption or of preventing evasion of its contribution-to-candidate
limits when it enacted its Campaign Financing Law, IMC § 1-2-404(B)
still has to further those purposes in order to be valid. Irvine's
focus on the "closely drawn" language of the scrutiny
test ignores that the test also requires that even a narrow, closely-drawn
restriction must "further" the government's sufficiently
compelling purposes.
The language from Buckley recited by Irvine makes this point forcefully
clear. In Buckley, the Court upheld a restriction on contributions
to candidates because the restriction focused on the "narrow
aspect of political association where the actuality and potential
for corruption have been identified." Appellee's Br. at 31
(quoting Buckley, 424 U.S. at 28) (emphasis added). Here, Irvine
has conceded that it was "unaware of any instances of quid
pro quo corruption of candidates in Irvine municipal elections caused
by contributions to independent expenditure committees, either since
adoption of the Ordinance or which served as a basis for the Ordinance."
JS 29 (ER 36). Irvine has thus failed to identify any actual or
potential corruption that its ordinance was purportedly designed
to prevent.
Irvine simply cannot escape the fact that the Supreme Court has
held, repeatedly, that independent expenditures themselves do not
implicate government's concerns with quid pro quo corruption or
the appearance of such corruption. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign
Comm. v. FEC, 518 U.S. 604, 616 (1996); NCPAC, 470 U.S. at 498;
Buckley, 424 U.S. at 47. Nor can it escape the logical consequence
of those holdings: Contributions to independent expenditure committees
"are even more remotely connected to the dangers of corruption
of candidates than are the independent expenditures themselves,
so likewise are not justified by any sufficiently compelling interest."
Righeimer, Order Denying Motion to Dismiss, at 3; San Franciscans,
Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction, at
15.
Irvine's reliance on Colorado Republican and NCPAC as support for
its position is disingenuous. Irvine claims, for example, that the
Supreme Court in NCPAC acknowledged "that candidates may take
notice of and reward those responsible for PAC expenditures by giving
official favors to the latter in exchange for the supporting messages."
Appellee's Br. at 35 (quoting NCPAC, 470 U.S. at 498). But Irvine
fails to inform the Court that NCPAC specifically rejected that
argument as a mere "hypothetical possibility and nothing more."
470 U.S. at 498. And in its quotation from Colorado Republican,
Irvine elides over the phrase that undermines its use of the case:
"The absence of prearrangement and coordination does not eliminate,
but it does help to alleviate, any danger that a candidate will
understand the expenditure as an effort to obtain a quid pro quo."
518 U.S. at 616 (emphasis added, depicting Irvine's omission, internal
quotation marks omitted, Appellee's Br. 35). In both cases, the
Supreme Court invalidated restrictions on independent expenditures,
despite the possibility that such expenditures might lead to quid
pro quo corruption, because the possibility was too remote-a mere
"hypothetical possibility"-to warrant restrictions on
political speech. Here, the possibility of corruption is even more
remote, because the contributions to the independent expenditure
committees are even further removed from the candidate than the
independent expenditures themselves.
Justice Blackmun's opinion in CMA is directly on point and, contrary
to Irvine's assertion, his opinion is the controlling authority
in that case. Justice Blackmun differentiated between contributions
to multi-candidate committees that could be funneled to candidates
and contributions to independent expenditures, strongly suggesting
that restrictions on the latter were unconstitutional. 453 U.S.
at 203 (Blackmun, J., concurring in judgment).
Irvine takes issue with The Lincoln Club's statement of the precedential
authority of Justice Blackmun's concurring opinion in CMA, but it
is black letter law that "[w]hen a fragmented Court decides
a case and no single rationale explaining the result enjoys the
assent of five Justices, 'the holding of the Court may be viewed
as that position taken by those Members who concurred in the judgments
on the narrowest grounds.'" Marks v. United States, 430 U.S.
188, 193 (1977) (quoting Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 169 n.
15 (1976)). The rule has been recognized and followed in this Court.
See, e.g., Harris v. Wright, 93 F.3d 581, 584 (9th Cir. 1996).
Irvine contends, correctly, that Justice Blackmun did not join in
the section of Justice Marshall's CMA opinion concerning contribution
limits, but that is just the point. Justice Blackmun's refusal to
join is what makes the relevant portion of Justice Marshall's opinion
merely a plurality opinion, requiring the Marks assessment described
above to determine which opinion decided the case on the most narrow
grounds. Because Justice Blackmun's opinion is based on narrower
grounds than the plurality opinion, it is controlling. The holding
of CMA approving limits on contributions to multi-candidate committees
that in turn funneled contributions to candidates, therefore, does
not extend to limits on contributions to independent expenditure
committees.
The District Court for the Northern District of California recently
recognized this very point:
In California Medical, although a majority, composed of a plurality
and Justice Blackmun concurring, allowed limits on contributions
to PACs that make direct contributions to candidates, Justice Blackmun
stated that limits on contributions to PACs making only independent
expenditures are clearly unconstitutional.
San Franciscans, Order Granting Preliminary Injunction, at 13 n.2
(citing CMA, 453 U.S., at 196-98 (plurality), 202-03 (Blackmun,
concurring in judgment)) (emphasis added).
Irvine also denigrates the relevance of Citizens Against Rent Control,
the only Supreme Court decision squarely dealing with, and rejecting,
limits on contributions to independent expenditure committees. Although
Citizens Against Rent Control involved ballot measures, the Supreme
Court's holdings in Buckley and NCPAC (invalidating limits on independent
expenditures because of the lack of sufficient nexus between such
expenditures and any concern with corruption of candidates) makes
the holding in Citizens Against Rent Control dispositive here. If
the independent expenditures themselves do not raise a concern with
corruption of public officials (just as expenditures for ballot
measures raised no such concern in Citizens Against Rent Control),
then the contributions to independent expenditure committees cannot
possibly raise such a concern, whether the committee participates
in candidate or ballot measure elections.
Neither does IMC § 1-2-404(B) further an anti-evasion purpose.
As described above, the anti-evasion purpose recognized by some
courts is a concern that "unscrupulous individuals could pass
unlimited amounts of cash to permanent committees with the understanding
that those funds would be disbursed directly to specific candidates."
Terry, 108 F.3d at 649 (emphasis added). Because IMC § 1-2-404(B)
is limited to independent expenditure committees, which by definition
do not have any contact with candidates, contributions to such committees
cannot be used to evade the limits on contributions to candidates.
Irvine's restriction on contributions to independent expenditure
committees therefore has no connection whatsoever with any concern
about evasion of candidate contribution limits; it certainly is
not closely drawn (not to mention narrowly-tailored) to further
Irvine's supposed anti-evasion concern.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above and previously in The Lincoln Club's
opening brief, the district court's grant of summary judgment for
the City of Irvine must be reversed, and summary judgment should
instead be entered for The Lincoln Club.
Dated: February 20, 2001
Respectfully submitted,
John C. Eastman
THE CLAREMONT INSTITUTE CENTER FOR
CONSTITUTIONAL JURISPRUDENCE
c/o Chapman Univ. School of Law
One University Drive
Orange, California 91711
(714) 628-2587
Manuel S. Klausner
LAW OFFICES OF MANUEL S. KLAUSNER, P.C.
One Bunker Hill Building, Eighth Floor
601 West Fifth Street
Los Angeles, CA 90071
(213) 617-0414
Patrick J. Manshardt (Cal. Bar No. 178085)
Of Counsel, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS FOUNDATION
One Bunker Hill Building, Eighth Floor
601 West Fifth Street
Los Angeles, CA 90071
(213) 688-4045
Attorneys for Plaintiffs/Appellants
|