Citizens for Jobs & Energy v. Fair Political Practices Com., S.F. 23391
Citation | 129 Cal.Rptr. 106,16 Cal.3d 671 |
Decision Date | 07 April 1976 |
Docket Number | S.F. 23391 |
Parties | , 547 P.2d 1386 CITIZENS FOR JOBS AND ENERGY et al., Petitioners, v. FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION, Respondent. |
Court | United States State Supreme Court (California) |
Bodle, Fogel, Julber, Reinhardt & Rothschild, Stephen Reinhardt, Joel Klevens, Los Angeles, Ball, Hunt, Hart, Brown & Baerwitz, Joseph A. Ball, John R. McDonough, Beverly Hills, Loren R. Rothschild and Allan E. Tebbetts, Long Beach, for petitioners.
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Robert S. Warren and Don Howarth, Los Angeles, as amici curiae for petitioners.
Jerome B. Falk, Jr., San Francisco, Steven L. Mayer, Berkeley, Howard, Prim, Rice, Nemerovski, Canady & Pollak, San Francisco, Daniel H. Lowenstein, Robert M. Stern, Menlo Park, Kenneth Finney, Berkeley, and Natalie West, Sacramento, for respondent.
This proceeding challenges the constitutionality of Government Code sections 85300--85305, which limit the amount that may be spent to influence the electorate to vote for or against a statewide ballot proposition.
The sections in question are part of the Political Reform Act of 1974. (Gov.Code, tit. 9, § 81000 et seq.) They provide in effect that the supporters and the opponents of a statewide measure, taken collectively, may each spend at least $500,000 in their campaign, but neither may spend more than 8 cents per member of the voting age population. (§ 85303.) 1 The permissible expenditure level between these two limits depends in each case on how much the opposing side intends to spend, because neither side may spend in excess of $500,000 more than the other. (Id.)
Any committee planning to spend more than $10,000 for this purpose (§ 85301) must disclose the amount in a statement of intent filed with the Fair Political Practices Commission (hereinafter called the commission). (§ 85302.) If the commission finds that the committee 'is in good faith in supporting or opposing the measure and that it has the intention and ability to incur the expenditures,' it shall approve the statement of intent and notify the committee of the amount it is permitted to spend. (Id.) If the aggregate amounts intended to be spent by several committees on the same side exceed the permissible expenditure level, the commission will apportion the latter amount among such committees according to an arithmetical formula. (§ 85304.)
On December 8, 1975, the validity of the foregoing statutory scheme was brought into question by a petition for original writ of mandate filed with this court by a committee known as Citizens for Jobs and Energy (hereinafter called the committee). 2 The committee contended that the cited statutes contravene the guarantees of freedom of speech of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 2 of the California Constitution because the spending limitations they impose (1) are a substantial and direct infringement on the right of citizens to disseminate and to receive political communications, (2) are not justified by a compelling governmental interest furthered by the Political Reform Act of 1974, (3) are unreasonably low in amount, (4) are implemented by a system of prior restraints, and (5) are void for vagueness, particularly in their definition of 'expenditures.'
On January 21, 1976, we issued an alternative writ of mandate directing the commission (1) to vacate its allocation limiting the amount which the committee may spend up to February 1, 1976, (2) to refrain from making any future allocations limiting the committee's expenditures, and (3) to apply the Political Reform Act of 1974 without enforcing any limitations on ballot measure expenditures, or to show cause why it should not do so. Pending final determination of the proceeding we stayed the operation of Government Code sections 85300--85305.
On January 30, 1976, the United States Supreme Court filed its decision in Buckley v. Valeo, --- U.S. ---, 96 S.Ct. 612, 46 L.Ed.2d 659. The case dealt, inter alia, with the constitutionality of the following provisions of section 608 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended in 1974: (1) no person may make any expenditure 'relative to a clearly identified candidate' for federal office in excess of $1,000 in any calendar year; (2) no candidate may make any expenditure from his personal funds in any calendar year in excess of certain fixed ceilings; 3 and (3) no candidate may spend in the course of one campaign more than certain aggregate amounts, which are determined either by the office or by the size of the voting age population of the state. 4
In Buckley the Supreme Court struck down each of the foregoing statutory limitations on campaign spending as violative of the freedom of speech guarantee of the First Amendment. The court proceeded from the premise that ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Fair Political Practices Com. v. Superior Court
...freedom of speech guarantee of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. (Citizens for Jobs & Energy v. Fair Political Practices Com. (1976) 16 Cal.3d 671, 129 Cal.Rptr. 106, 547 P.2d 1396.) In Hardie v. Eu (1976) 18 Cal.3d 371, 134 Cal.Rptr. 201, 556 P.2d 301, we concluded Gov......
-
Taxpayers To Limit Campaign Spending v. Fair Pol. Practices Com., S012016
...46 L.Ed.2d 659; Hardie v. Eu (1976) 18 Cal.3d 371, 134 Cal.Rptr. 201, 556 P.2d 301; Citizens for Jobs & Energy v. Fair Political Practices Com. (1976) 16 Cal.3d 671, 129 Cal.Rptr. 106, 547 P.2d 1386. Cf. Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) 494 U.S. 652, 110 S.Ct. 1391, 108 L.Ed.2d......
-
Governor Gray Davis Com. v. Ata
...Superior Court (1979) 25 Cal.3d 33, 44, 157 Cal.Rptr. 855, 599 P.2d 46; see also Citizens for Jobs & Energy v. Fair Political Practices Com. (1976) 16 Cal.3d 671, 674-675, 129 Cal. Rptr. 106, 547 P.2d 1386.) "Using this test, we determine whether the restraints imposed are nonetheless justi......
-
Johnson v. Bradley
...... & Olson, Los Angeles, for amicus curiae Com'n to Draft an Ethics Code for Los Angeles City ... the use of public funds to finance any political campaign, whether statewide, legislative or ...Fair Political Practices Com. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d ...201, 556 P.2d 301; Citizens For Jobs & Energy v. Fair Political Practices ......