Day v. Holahan
| Decision Date | 01 September 1994 |
| Docket Number | 94-2390 and 94-2587,Nos. 94-2387,IMPACE-MEA,94-2388,s. 94-2387 |
| Citation | 34 F.3d 1356 |
| Parties | Scott DAY, Treasurer of; , a Political Fund; Steve Frazier, a Minnesota taxpayer and contributor to; Richard Kimbler, a taxpayer and an Independent Republican candidate for Secretary of State, Appellants, v. John L. HOLAHAN, Jr., in his capacity as Chair of the Ethical Practices Board, or his successor, Appellee. MINNESOTA CITIZENS CONCERNED FOR LIFE, INC., Appellant, Jacqueline A. Schwietz, individually and as Treasurer of Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life Committee for State Pro-Life Candidates; Eileen Angell, Plaintiffs, Mitchell Hoyt Unruh; Lori Erickson, Appellants, v. John L. HOLAHAN, Jr., in his capacity as Chair of the Ethical Practices Board; Hubert H. Humphrey, III, in his capacity as Attorney General of the State of Minnesota, Appellees. MINNESOTA CITIZENS CONCERNED FOR LIFE, INC., Plaintiff, Jacqueline A. Schwietz, individually and as Treasurer of Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life Committee for State Pro-Life Candidates, Appellant, Eileen Angell; Mitchell Hoyt Unruh; Lori Erickson, Plaintiffs, v. John L. HOLAHAN, Jr., in his capacity as Chair of the Ethical Practices Board; Hubert H. Humphrey, III, in his capacity as Attorney General of the State of Minnesota, Appellees. MINNESOTA CITIZENS CONCERNED FOR LIFE, INC.; Jacqueline A. Schwietz, individually and as Treasurer of Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life Committee for State Pro-Life Candidates; Eileen Angell; Mitchell Hoyt Unruh; Lori Erickson, Appellees, v. John L. HOLAHAN, Jr., in his capacity as Chair of the Ethical Practices Board; Hubert H. Humphrey, III, in his capacity as Attorney General of the State of Minnesota, Appellants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Harley M. Ogata, St. Paul, MN, argued for Scott Day in No. 94-2387 ().
Frank J. Walz, Minneapolis, MN (argued), for Jacqueline A. Schwietz in No. 94-2390 ().
James Bopp, Jr., Terre Haute, IN (argued), for Minnesota Citizens in No. 2388 ().
Joceyln Furtwangler Olson, St. Paul, MN, argued for appellee.
Before BOWMAN and LOKEN, Circuit Judges, and STEVENS, * District Judge.
These consolidated appeals and a cross-appeal challenge the District Court's decision granting summary judgment for and against the appellants and cross-appellees on various constitutional challenges to sections of the campaign reform laws enacted during Minnesota's 1993 legislative session. We granted expedited review of the District Court's orders. Having reviewed de novo the decision to grant summary judgment (there are no disputed issues of fact), we now affirm in part and reverse in part, and remand to the District Court.
IMPACE-MEA is the registered political fund of the Minnesota Education Association, and Scott Day is treasurer of the fund. Steve Frazier is a contributor to IMPACE-MEA and Richard Kimbler is a candidate for Minnesota secretary of state. We will refer to these appellants (plaintiffs below) collectively as IMPACE.
Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, Inc., is a nonprofit corporation organized under Minnesota law. Mitchell Hoyt Unruh intends to be a candidate for the Minnesota House of Representatives this year (presumably by now that intent is a reality) and to be bound by the applicable Minnesota campaign finance and ethics laws. Lori Erickson was a candidate for the Minnesota Senate in 1990 and 1992, plans to run again in 1996, and likewise intends to be bound by applicable state law. We will refer to these appellants (plaintiffs below) collectively as MCCL.
Appellant and cross-appellee Jacqueline A. Schwietz (a plaintiff below) is treasurer of Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life Committee for State Pro-Life Candidates (MCCL-CSPC), a political fund. Cross-appellee Eileen Angell (a plaintiff below) is a contributor to MCCL-CSPC.
Appellee and cross-appellant John L. Holahan Jr. (a defendant below) is chairman of the Minnesota Ethical Practices Board, 1 which is responsible for the administration, interpretation, and enforcement of the statutes at issue in this case. Appellee and cross-appellant Hubert H. Humphrey III (a defendant below) is Minnesota Attorney General. We will refer to Holahan and Humphrey, collectively or individually, as the state.
Among the 1993 changes and additions to the Minnesota campaign finance and ethics laws was this provision directed to independent expenditures:
Independent expenditures; limits increased. (a) The expenditure limits in this section are increased by the sum of independent expenditures made in opposition to a candidate plus independent expenditures made on behalf of the candidate's major political party opponents, other than expenditures by an association targeted to inform solely its own dues-paying members of the association's position on a candidate.
(b) Within 48 hours after receipt of an expenditure report or notice required by section 10A.20, subdivision 3, 6, or 6b, the board shall notify each candidate in the race of the increase in the expenditure limit for the candidates against whom the independent expenditures have been made.
(c) Within three days after providing this notice, the board shall pay each candidate against whom the independent expenditures have been made, if the candidate is eligible to receive a public subsidy and has raised twice the minimum match required, an additional public subsidy equal to one-half the independent expenditures. The amount needed to pay the additional public subsidy under this subdivision is appropriated from the general fund to the board.
Minn.Stat. Sec. 10A.25 subd. 13 (Supp.1993).
IMPACE, Schwietz, and MCCL make several constitutional challenges to this statute. Because we hold that it violates the First Amendment, we do not reach the other constitutional issues raised.
The District Court concluded that section 10A.25 subd. 13 was content-neutral and was not restrictive of speech (the latter conclusion making the first irrelevant), and ended its analysis there. We think the District Court took too narrow an approach in considering whether section 10A.25 subd. 13 restricts speech and whether the restriction is content-based, and therefore erred in holding that the First Amendment was not implicated.
Under Chapter 10A of the Minnesota Statutes, an independent expenditure is defined as "an expenditure expressly advocating the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate," but one made neither with the consent or authorization of the candidate nor at his request or suggestion. Id. Sec. 10A.01 subd. 10b (Supp.1993). Once any individual, political committee, or political fund makes (or becomes obligated to make) an independent expenditure of more than $100 on behalf of any candidate, or against any candidate, the following scenario is mandated by section 10A.25 subd. 13:
The candidate whose defeat is advocated (or whose opponent's election is encouraged) by the independent expenditure has her own expenditure limits increased by the amount of the independent expenditure. Id. Sec. 10A.25 subd. 13(a). The Minnesota Ethical Practices Board then must pay her, if she is eligible to receive a public subsidy and has raised two times the minimum amount required for a match, an additional public subsidy equal to one-half the amount of the independent expenditure. 2 Thus, by advocating a candidate's defeat (or her opponent's victory) via an independent expenditure, the individual, committee, or fund working for the candidate's defeat instead has increased the maximum amount she may spend and given her the wherewithal to increase that spending--merely by exercising a First Amendment right to make expenditures opposing her or supporting her opponent. Thus the individual or group intending to contribute to her defeat becomes directly responsible for adding to her campaign coffers. To the extent that a candidate's campaign is enhanced by the operation of the statute, the political speech of the individual or group who made the independent expenditure "against" her (or in favor of her opponent) is impaired.
It is clear that independent expenditures are protected speech. Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 14, 96 S.Ct. 612, 632, 46 L.Ed.2d 659 (1976) (per curiam). 3 It is equally clear that section 10A.25 subd. 13 infringes on that protected speech because of the chilling effect the statute has on the political speech of the person or group making the independent expenditure. As the potential "independent expenders" allege in their briefs (and as at least one sponsor of the legislation intended 4), the mere enactment of section 10A.25 subd. 13 already has prevented many if not most potential independent expenditures from ever being made. The knowledge that a candidate who one does not want to be elected will have her spending limits increased and will receive a public subsidy equal to half the amount of the independent expenditure, as a direct result of that independent expenditure, chills the free exercise of that protected speech. This "self-censorship" that has occurred even before the state implements the statute's mandates is no less a burden on speech that is susceptible to constitutional challenge than is direct government censorship. See City of Lakewood v. Plain Dealer Publishing Co., 486 U.S. 750, 757-58, 108 S.Ct. 2138, 2144, 100 L.Ed.2d 771 (1988).
Our conclusion that the most fundamental of rights is infringed by section 10A.25 subd. 13 does not end our inquiry, however. We now must decide whether the statute is content-neutral or content-based, "not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Green Party of Ct v. Garfield
...that their speech is chilled by the threat of responsive speech. The only source of support for plaintiffs' argument is Day v. Holahan, 34 F.3d 1356 (8th Cir.1994). In that case, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals considered whether an independent expenditure trigger violated the First Ame......
-
Fireman v. U.S.
...interest); Day v. Hayes, 863 F.Supp. 940, 952 (D.Minn.1994) (Magnuson, J.), aff'd in part, rev'd in part on other grounds, 34 F.3d 1356 (8th Cir.1994) (holding the $100 limits on individual contribution to a political committee or political fund Finally, Fireman quotes from the Supreme Cour......
-
Citizens for Respon. Gov. State Polit. v. Buckley
...on campaign financing"); Terry, 108 F.3d at 650-51 ("preventing perceived corruption is a compelling state interest"); Day v. Holahan, 34 F.3d 1356, 1365 (8th Cir.1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1127, 115 S.Ct. 936, 130 L.Ed.2d 881 (1995); Arkansas Right to Life State Political Action Committ......
-
Davis v. Fed. Election Comm'n
...so despite § 319(a), but they must shoulder a special and potentially significant burden if they make that choice. See Day v. Holahan, 34 F.3d 1356, 1359–1360 (C.A.8 1994) (concluding that a Minnesota law that increased a candidate's expenditure limits and eligibility for public funds based......
-
The lonely death of public campaign financing.
...F.3d 940, 953 (6th Cir. 1998). (217.) Id. at 948. (218.) Id. at 953; see also Wilkinson v. Jones, 876 F. Supp. 916 (W.D. Ky. 1995). (219.) 34 F.3d 1356, 1363-66 (8th Cir. 1994). But the Eighth Circuit has upheld a law that permitted publicly financed candidates to exceed an expenditure ceil......
-
Richard L. Hasen, Anticipatory Overrulings, Invitations, Time Bombs, and Inadvertence: How Supreme Court Justices Move the Law
...do so despite § 319(a), but they must shoulder a special and potentially significant burden if they make that choice. See Day v. Holahan, 34 F.3d 1356, 1359–1360 (CA8 1994) (concluding that a Minnesota law that increased a candidate’s expenditure limits and eligibility for public funds base......
-
Public funding and democratic elections.
...be making the action of an independent group the trigger for an additional benefit to the publicly funded candidate. In Day v. Holahan, 34 F.3d 1356 (8th Cir. 1994), the court invalidated a provision of Minnesota's public funding law that would have provided publicly funded candidates a sub......