Williams v. Garfield

Decision Date13 July 2010
Docket NumberNos. 09-0599-cv(L), 09-0609-cv(CON).,s. 09-0599-cv(L), 09-0609-cv(CON).
Citation616 F.3d 189
PartiesGREEN PARTY OF CONNECTICUT, S. Michael Derosa, Libertarian Party of Connecticut, Elizabeth Gallo, Joanne P. Philips, Ann C. Robinson, Roger C. Vann, Association of CT Lobbyists, and Barry Williams, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Jeffrey GARFIELD, Richard Blumenthal, Patricia Hendel, Robert N. Worgaftik, Jaclyn Bernstein, Rebecca M. Doty, Enid Johns Oresman, Dennis Riley, Michael Rion, Scott A. Storms, Sister Salyl J. Tolles, and Benjamin Bycel, Defendants-Appellees, Audrey Blondin, Tom Sevigny, Common Cause of CT, and Connecticut Citizen Action Group, Intervenor-Defendants-Appellees.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.

R. Bartley Halloran, Farmington, CT, for plaintiffs-appellants Association of CT Lobbyists and Barry Williams.

Mark J. Lopez, Lewis, Clifton & Nikolaidis, P.C., New York, NY, (Benjamin Sahl, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, New York, NY, and David J. McGuire, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, Hartford, CT, on the brief), for the remaining plaintiffs-appellants.

Perry Zinn-Rowthorn (Richard Blumenthal, Attorney General, and Maura Murphy Osborne, Assistant Attorney General, on the brief), Office of the Attorney General of the State of Connecticut, Hartford, CT, for defendants-appellees.

Ira M. Feinberg, Hogan & Hartson LLP, New York, NY, (Monica Y. Youn and Angela Migally, Brennan Center for Justice, NYU School of Law, New York, NY; and David Dunn, Hogan & Hartson LLP, New York, NY, on the brief), for intervenor-defendants-appellees.

Justin R. Clark and Peter J. Martin, Pepe & Hazard LLP, Hartford, CT, for amicus curiae the Republican Party of Connecticut in support of plaintiffs-appellants.

Before KEARSE, CABRANES, and HALL, Circuit Judges.

JOSÉ A. CABRANES, Circuit Judge:

This is the second of two opinions in which we consider a constitutional challenge to certain provisions of Connecticut's Campaign Finance Reform Act (CFRA).

As we describe in our first opinion, the CFRA was enacted in 2005 as a comprehensive effort to bring about campaign finance reform in Connecticut. In our first opinion, which we file separately, we consider a challenge to the Citizens Election Program (CEP), a part of the CFRA that provides public funds to candidates running for state office. See Green Party of Conn. v. Garfield, 616 F.3d 213, 2010 WL 2737153 (2d Cir.2010). We consider here a challenge to provisions of the CFRA that ban campaign contributions and the solicitation of campaign contributions by state contractors, lobbyists, and their families.

Following cross-motions for summary judgment, the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Stefan R. Underhill, Judge) determined that each of the challenged provisions was consistent with the First Amendment. See Green Party of Conn. v. Garfield, 590 F.Supp.2d 288 (D.Conn.2008) ( Green Party I). We affirm part of that decision, as we hold that the CFRA comports with the First Amendment insofar as it bans contributions by state contractors, “prospective” state contractors, the “principals” of contractors and prospective state contractors, 1 and the spouses and dependent children of those individuals.

We also reverse part of the District Court's decision, as we hold that the CFRA violates the First Amendment insofar as it bans contributions by lobbyists and their families and insofar as it prohibits contractors, lobbyists, and their families from soliciting contributions on behalf of candidates.

BACKGROUND

We first describe the history of the CFRA. We then outline the challenged provisions and briefly recount the procedural history of this action.

I. The History of the CFRA

In our first opinion addressing the CFRA, we summarized the history of the statute:

The CFRA ... was passed in response to several corruption scandals in Connecticut. [ See Green Party of Conn. v. Garfield, 648 F.Supp.2d 298, 306-07 (D.Conn.2009) (“ Green Party II”).] The most widely publicized of the scandals involved Connecticut's former governor, John Rowland. In 2004, Rowland was accused of accepting over $100,000 worth of gifts and services from state contractors, including vacations, flights on a private jet, and renovations to his lake cottage. Rowland accepted the gifts, it was alleged, in exchange for assisting the contractors in securing lucrative state contracts. Rowland resigned amidst the allegations, and in 2005 pleaded guilty-along with two aides and several contractors-to federal charges in connection with the scandal. Rowland was fined and sentenced to a year and a day in federal prison. See id. at 307.
Sadly, the ignominy of public corruption was not limited to Rowland. As the District Court discussed in detail, the “Rowland scandal was but one of the many corruption scandals involving elected officials in state and local government that helped earn the state the nickname ‘Corrupticut.’ See id. at 307-08 (cataloging the scandals); see also id. at 307 n. 9 (discussing the decline of the reputation of Connecticut's state government).
It was in the wake of those scandals that Connecticut lawmakers resolved to enact “expansive campaign finance reforms.” Id. at 309. In the summer of 2005, Governor M. Jodi Rell established the Campaign Finance Reform Working Group (the “Working Group”), a collection of six state representatives and six state senators who were charged with drafting a new campaign finance reform law. After holding televised hearings for three months, the Working Group proposed an expansive bill, much of which would be incorporated into the final version of the CFRA. See id. at 309-10.
In the fall of 2005, Governor Rell called a special session of the General Assembly for the sole purpose of considering the Working Group's proposed bill. After a month of debate, the General Assembly passed the CFRA, and Governor

Rell signed it into law. See id. at 310-11. As the District Court set forth in detail, several contemporaneous statements from General Assembly members, as well as Governor Rell, explain that the CFRA was passed “to combat actual and perceived corruption in state government.” Id. at 311.

Green Party, at 218-19, 2010 WL 2737153.

II. The Challenged Provisions

The CFRA is a broad-ranging and complex statute, and plaintiffs challenge only parts of the law. Put succinctly, the challenged provisions of the CFRA prohibit state contractors and certain lobbyists from (1) making campaign contributions to candidates for state office and (2) soliciting campaign contributions on behalf of candidates for state office. Violations of those prohibitions are punishable by civil penalties and criminal sanctions. See Conn. Gen.Stat. §§ 9-610(j), 9-622(8), 9-622(10), 9-623(a).

A. Contribution Bans

First, the CFRA prohibits state contractors and lobbyists from making campaign contributions to candidates for state office. See Conn. Gen.Stat. §§ 9-610(g), 9-612(g)(2)(A)-(B).

The CFRA's ban on contractor contributions applies to any “person, business entity or nonprofit organization that enters into a state contract.” Id. § 9-612(g)(1)(D). It also applies to any “prospective” contractor; to any “principal” of a contractor or prospective contractor; and to the “spouse” or “dependent child” 2 of a contractor, a prospective contractor, or a principal of a contractor or prospective contractor. Id. § 9-612(g)(2). (We discuss these terms in detail below.)

In addition, the ban on contractor contributions is what might be called “branch specific.” If the contract in question is “with or from a state agency in the executive branch,” the contractor may contribute to a candidate for the General Assembly but not to a candidate for an executive office ( i.e., a candidate for “Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, State Comptroller, Secretary of the State or State Treasurer”). Id. § 9-612(g)(2)(A). If the contract in question is “with or from the General Assembly,” the contractor may contribute to a candidate for an executive office but not to a candidate for the General Assembly. Id. § 9-612(g)(2)(B). 3 Nonetheless, any “holder, or principal of a holder of a valid prequalification certificate,” such a certification being required in order to bid or perform work on certain high-cost, state-funded projects, is precluded from contributing to candidates for either branch of government. Id. § 9-612(g)(2)(A)-(B). Further, all individuals and entities covered by the contractor ban are prohibited from contributing to any state or town [p]arty committee.” Id. § 9-601(1)-(2).

The CFRA's ban on lobbyist contributions applies to any “communicator lobbyist,” defined (a) as “someone compensated for lobbying over the threshold amount of $2,000 in any calendar year,” Green Party I, 590 F.Supp.2d at 295 n. 3 (quoting State Elections Enforcement Commission (SEEC) Declaratory Ruling 2006-1, at 2), and (b) as “a lobbyist who communicates directly or solicits others to communicate with an official or his staff in the legislative or executive branch of government or in a quasi-public agency for the purpose of influencing legislative or administrative action,” Conn. Gen.Stat. § 1-91(v). The ban on lobbyist contributions also applies to the “spouse” or “dependent child” of a communicator lobbyist. See id. § 9-610(g) (applying the ban to the “immediate family” of a communicator lobbyist); id. § 9-601(24) (defining [i]mmediate family” as “the spouse or a dependent child of an individual”). 4

B. Solicitation Bans

The CFRA also prohibits contractors and lobbyists from “solicit[ing] campaign contributions “on behalf of” candidates for state office. See Conn. Gen.Stat. §§ 9-610(h), 9-612(g)(2)(A)-(B).

Like the CFRA's ban on contributions, the ban on the solicitation of contributions applies not only to current state contractors, but also to any “prospective” contractor; to any “principal”...

To continue reading

Request your trial
57 cases
  • Upstate Jobs Party v. Kosinski
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of New York
    • September 8, 2021
    ...in light of the fact that Plaintiffs’ challenges concern New York State's electoral system as a whole.18 Cf. Green Party of Ct. v. Garfield , 616 F.3d 189, 201 (2d Cir. 2010) (rejecting the strict application of the Randall factors after the issuance of Citizens United because contributions......
  • In Re: Anh Cao
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • September 10, 2010
    ...The constitutional rules governing campaign finance law are presently in a state of flux, see Green Party of Conn. v. Garfield, 616 F.3d 189, 2010 WL 2737134 (2d Cir. July 13, 2010), but there is a clear trend favoring the protection of political speech. Beginning with WRTL, the Supreme Cou......
  • Stop this Insanity, Inc. Emp. Leadership Fund v. Fed. Election Comm'n
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • November 5, 2012
    ...123 S.Ct. 2200 (upholding § 441b(a)'s prohibition on direct political contributions by corporations); see also Green Party of Conn. v. Garfield, 616 F.3d 189, 199 (2d Cir.2010) (“Beaumont and other cases applying the closely drawn standard to contribution limits remain good law. Indeed, in ......
  • Wagner v. Fed. Election Comm'n
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • April 16, 2012
    ...the scope of the particular law, not a difference in the type of activity regulated by the law.”); see also Green Party of Connecticut v. Garfield, 616 F.3d 189, 199 (2d Cir.2010) (applying closely drawn scrutiny to ban on campaign contributions by state contractors and lobbyists). As the C......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • ELECTION LAW VIOLATIONS
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review No. 58-3, July 2021
    • July 1, 2021
    ...567 U.S. 935 (2013); Thalheimer v. City of San Diego, 645 F.3d 1109, 1124–26 (9th Cir. 2011) (similar); Green Party of Conn. v. Garf‌ield, 616 F.3d 189, 199 (2d Cir. 2010) (similar). 103. Minn. Citizens Concerned for Life, Inc. v. Swanson, 692 F.3d 864, 879 n.12 (8th Cir. 2012) (“Citizens U......
  • Election Law Violations
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review No. 59-3, July 2022
    • July 1, 2022
    ...567 U.S. 935 (2013); Thalheimer v. City of San Diego, 645 F.3d 1109, 1124–26 (9th Cir. 2011) (similar); Green Party of Conn. v. Garf‌ield, 616 F.3d 189, 199 (2d Cir. 2010) (similar). 103. See Minn. Citizens Concerned for Life, Inc. v. Swanson, 692 F.3d 864, 879 n.12 (8th Cir. 2012) (“ Citiz......
  • THE RIGHT TO PETITION AS ACCESS AND INFORMATION.
    • United States
    • University of Pennsylvania Law Review Vol. 169 No. 4, March 2021
    • March 1, 2021
    ...[https://perma.cc/T65V-WYEP]. (310) See, e.g., Green Party of Connecticut v. Garfield, 616 F.3d 189 (2d Cir. 2010) (striking down a Connecticut law barring campaign contributions by lobbyists); Brinkman v. Budish, 692 F. Supp. 2d 855 (S.D. Ohio 2010) (striking down an Ohio law barring forme......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT