Yamada v. Snipes

Citation786 F.3d 1182
Decision Date20 May 2015
Docket NumberNos. 12–15913,12–17845.,s. 12–15913
PartiesJimmy YAMADA; Russell Stewart, Plaintiffs, and A–1 A–Lectrician, Inc., Plaintiff–Appellant, v. William SNIPES, in his official capacity as chair and member of the Hawaii Campaign Spending Commission, Tina Pedro Gomes, in her official capacity as vice chair and member of the Hawaii Campaign Spending Commission; and Eldon Ching, Gregory Shoda and Adrienne Yoshihara, in their official capacities as members of the Hawaii Campaign Spending Commission, Defendants–Appellees. Jimmy Yamada; Russell Stewart, Plaintiffs–Appellants, and A–1 A–Lectrician, Inc., Plaintiff, v. William Snipes, in his official capacity as chair and member of the Hawaii Campaign Spending Commission; Tina Pedro Gomes, in her official capacity as vice chair and member of the Hawaii Campaign Spending Commission; and Eldon Ching, Gregory Shoda and Adrienne Yoshihara, in their official capacities as members of the Hawaii Campaign Spending Commission, Defendants–Appellees.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)

Randy Elf (argued), Lakewood, NY, & James Bopp, Jr., James Madison Center for Free Speech, Terre Haute, IN; James Hochberg, Honolulu, HI, for PlaintiffAppellant.

Justin L. McAdam (argued), Jeffrey P. Gallant & James Bopp, Jr., The Bopp Law Firm, P.C., Terre Haute, IN; James Hochberg, Honolulu, HI, for Plaintiffs.

Deirdre Marie–Iha (argued), Deputy Solicitor General, Robyn B. Chun, Deputy Assistant Attorney General & David M. Louie, Attorney General, Department of the Attorney General, Honolulu, HI, for DefendantsAppellees.

Paul S. Ryan, J. Gerald Hebert, Tara Malloy & Megan McAllen, Washington D.C., for Amicus Curiae The Campaign Legal Center.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii, J. Michael Seabright, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 1:10–cv–00497–JMS–RLP.

Before: ALEX KOZINSKI, RAYMOND C. FISHER and PAUL J. WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

FISHER, Circuit Judge:

This appeal concerns the constitutionality of four provisions of Hawaii's campaign finance laws under Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310, 130 S.Ct. 876, 175 L.Ed.2d 753 (2010), and related authority. A–1 A–Lectrician, Inc. (A–1), a for-profit corporation, appeals the district court's summary judgment in favor of members of Hawaii's Campaign Spending Commission (“the Commission”). Relying on Human Life of Washington Inc. v. Brumsickle, 624 F.3d 990 (9th Cir.2010), we hold that the challenged laws satisfy the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

I. Background

The plaintiffs are Jimmy Yamada, Russell Stewart and A–1. Before the 2010 general election, Yamada and Stewart each sought to contribute $2,500 to the Aloha Family Alliance–Political Action Committee (AFA–PAC), a registered “noncandidate committee” that makes independent campaign expenditures in Hawaii elections. They were forbidden from doing so, however, by Hawaii Revised Statute (HRS) § 11–358, which prohibits any person from “mak[ing] contributions to a noncandidate committee in an aggregate amount greater than $1,000 in an election.”

Plaintiff A–1 is a Hawaii electrical-construction corporation that makes campaign contributions and engages in political speech. Yamada is its CEO. During the 2010 election, A–1 contributed over $50,000 to candidates, candidate committees and party committees. It also purchased three newspaper advertisements at a cost of $2,000 to $3,000 each. Under the heading “Freedom Under Siege,” these advertisements declared that Hawaiians had “lost our freedom” because we have representatives who do not listen to the people.” One advertisement asserted State House Majority Leader Blake Oshiro and other representatives were “intent on the destruction of the family.” Another accused Oshiro and his colleagues of “disrespect[ing] the legislative process and the people.” In accordance with Hawaii law, see HRS § 11–391(a)(2)(B), all three advertisements included a disclaimer that they were [p]ublished without the approval and authority of the candidate.”

As a result of these expenditures and contributions, Hawaii law required A–1 to register as a “noncandidate committee” as defined by HRS § 11–302. Section 11–302 imposes reporting and disclosure requirements on any organization that has “the purpose of making or receiving contributions, making expenditures, or incurring financial obligations to influence [elections] over $1,000 in the aggregate for an election cycle. Id.; see HRS § 11–321(g). A–1, which plans to run similar advertisements and to make similar contributions to candidates in the future, objects to both the disclaimer requirement and the noncandidate committee registration and reporting requirements.

If A–1 is relieved of the obligation of registering as a noncandidate committee, it could be subject to reporting requirements associated with “electioneering communications” because it seeks to publish newspaper advertisements that mention candidates by name shortly before an election. See HRS § 11–341. Every entity that makes a disbursement for an electioneering communication, such as A–1's newspaper advertisements, must report certain identifying information to the Commission within 24 hours of certain disclosure dates. See id. Under the regulations in effect when A–1 filed this action, if A–1 were to remain a noncandidate committee, however, it would not have to file an electioneering communications report or comply with the provisions of HRS § 11–341. See Haw. Admin. Rule (HAR) § 3–160–48.1

Finally, A–1 is often a state government contractor, and when it has such contracts, Hawaii law prohibits it from making campaign contributions to candidates or candidate committees. See HRS § 11–355. A–1 challenges that prohibition as applied to its speech, although it declares it seeks to contribute only to lawmakers who neither award nor oversee its public contracts.

Shortly before the 2010 primary election, Yamada, Stewart and A–1 filed a nine-count complaint challenging the constitutionality of five provisions of Hawaii campaign finance law. Yamada and Stewart challenged the $1,000 limit on contributions to noncandidate committees, HRS § 11–358, and A–1 challenged four other provisions: (1) the requirement that it register as a noncandidate committee and the associated expenditure definition, HRS § 11–302 ; (2) if it does not have to register as a noncandidate committee, the requirement that it report identifying information when it makes an electioneering communication, HRS § 11–341 ; (3) the requirement that its advertisements include certain disclaimers, HRS § 11–391 ; and (4) the ban on contributions from government contractors to state legislative candidates, HRS § 11–355.

In October 2010, the district court preliminarily enjoined enforcement of the $1,000 contribution limit, HRS § 11–358, as applied to Yamada's and Stewart's proposed $2,500 contributions to AFA–PAC, a noncandidate committee. See Yamada v. Kuramoto, 744 F.Supp.2d 1075, 1078, 1087 (D.Haw.2010) (Yamada I ). The court denied A–1's motion for a preliminary injunction on its first, second and third claims. See Yamada v. Kuramoto, No. 10–cv–00497, 2010 WL 4603936, at *20 (D.Haw. Oct. 29, 2010) (Yamada II ). A–1 did not seek to enjoin the government contractor ban. The defendants appealed the preliminary injunction of § 11–358 but dismissed their appeal before argument.

On the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court permanently enjoined the $1,000 contribution limit, HRS § 11–358, as applied to Yamada's and Stewart's contributions to AFA–PAC and rejected each of A–1's constitutional challenges. See Yamada v. Weaver, 872 F.Supp.2d 1023, 1027–28, 1063 (D.Haw.2012) (Yamada III ). A–1 appeals the denial of summary judgment on its claims. The defendants have not cross-appealed the court's invalidation of § 11–358.

Yamada and Stewart sought their attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 based on their successful constitutional challenge to the $1,000 contribution limit. The district court awarded them $60,152.65 in fees and $3,623.29 in costs. Yamada and Stewart appeal that award in several respects, including the district court's denial of the fees they incurred defending against the defendants' abandoned appeal of the preliminary injunction ruling.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and review A–1's constitutional challenges de novo. See Human Life, 624 F.3d at 1000. A–1 raises three groups of issues on appeal: (1) whether the expenditure, noncandidate committee and advertisement definitions are unconstitutionally vague; (2) whether the noncandidate committee definition and advertising disclaimer and electioneering communications reporting requirements impose unconstitutional burdens on speech; and (3) whether the ban on contributions by government contractors is unconstitutional as applied to A–1's proposed contributions. Yamada and Stewart also appeal the partial denial of attorney's fees. We address these issues in turn.

II. Due Process Vagueness Challenge

We begin by addressing A–1's argument that § 11–302's definitions of “expenditure,” “noncandidate committee” and “advertisement” are unconstitutionally vague under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. A law is unconstitutionally vague when it “fails to provide a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice of what is prohibited, or is so standardless that it authorizes or encourages seriously discriminatory enforcement.” United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285, 304, 128 S.Ct. 1830, 170 L.Ed.2d 650 (2008). This doctrine “addresses at least two connected but discrete due process concerns: first, that regulated parties should know what is required of them so they may act accordingly; second, precision and guidance are necessary so that those enforcing the law do not act in an arbitrary or discriminatory way.” FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., –––U.S. ––––, 132 S.Ct. 2307, 2317, 183 L.Ed.2d 234 (2012). Where, as...

To continue reading

Request your trial
44 cases
  • John Doe v. Kerry
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Northern District of California
    • September 23, 2016
    ...matter jurisdiction except mootness, standing is determined as of the date of the filing of the complaint . . . ." Yamada v. Snipes, 786 F.3d 1182, 1203-04 (9th Cir. 2015); see also Biodiversity Legal Found. v. Badgley, 309 F.3d 1166, 1171 (9th Cir. 2002). A plaintiff is required to demonst......
  • Wieck v. CIT Grp., Inc.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Hawaii)
    • March 30, 2018
    ...... at 1548 (quotation marks omitted). Further, "standing is determined as of the commencement of litigation." Yamada v. Snipes , 786 F.3d 1182, 1203 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Biodiversity Legal Found. v. Badgley , 309 F.3d 1166, 1171 (9th Cir. 2002) (brackets ......
  • Schickel v. Dilger
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • May 30, 2019
    ...or principal for the purpose of lobbying"); Kimbell , 665 A.2d at 45 n.1 ("anything else of value"); see also Yamada v. Snipes , 786 F.3d 1182, 1188–89 (9th Cir. 2015) (rejecting vagueness challenge to "expenditure" definition that included "anything of value"); Vt. Right to Life Comm., Inc......
  • United States v. Lucero
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • March 4, 2021
    ...given there will always be an inherent but permissible degree of uncertainty in applying any standards-based test." Yamada v. Snipes , 786 F.3d 1182, 1190–91 (9th Cir. 2015) (emphasis added).Lucero's vagueness challenge centers on the concept of "adjacency."12 He contends that the law was m......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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