By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//December 12, 2011//
By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//December 12, 2011//
United States Court of Appeals
Civil
Constitutional Law — First Amendment — campaign limits
Applying section 11.26(4), Wisconsin’s $10,000 aggregate annual contribution cap, to contributions to independent-expenditure committees violates the First Amendment.
“The defendants … argue only that large contributions to independent-expenditure groups create the appearance of corruption ‘in more indirect ways’—for example, through ‘the proverbial “wink or nod” between donor and candidate regarding the donor’s “uncoordinated” beyond-limits contribution to an independent expenditure political committee.’ They maintain that preventing the indirect appearance of corruption is enough to satisfy the intermediate standard of review. This argument is foreclosed by Citizens United. As a categorical matter, independent expenditures ‘do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.’ Citizens United, 130 S. Ct. at 909. Moreover, to the extent that the defendants’ ‘wink or nod’ hypothetical implies collusion between a candidate and an independent committee, it suggests only that the independent committee is not truly independent. If that’s true, the committee would not qualify for the free-speech safe harbor for independent expenditures; the First Amendment permits the government to regulate coordinated expenditures. Colo. Republican, 533 U.S. at 465 (‘[A political] party’s coordinated expenditures, unlike expenditures truly independent, may be restricted to minimize circumvention of contribution limits.’).”
Vacated and Remanded.
11-2623 Wisconsin Right to Life State Political Action Committee v. Barland
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Clevert, J., Sykes, J.