Lair v. Murry
| Decision Date | 10 October 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. CV 12–12–H–CCL.,CV 12–12–H–CCL. |
| Citation | 903 F.Supp.2d 1077 |
| Parties | Doug LAIR, Steve Dogiakos, American Tradition Partnership, American Tradition Partnership PAC, Montana Right to Life Association PAC, Sweet Grass Council for Community Integrity, Lake County Republican Central Committee, Beaverhead County Republican Central Committee, Jake Oil LLC, JL Oil LLC, Champion Painting Inc, and John Milanovich, Plaintiffs, v. James MURRY, in his official capacity as Commissioner of Political Practices; Steve Bullock, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of Montana; and Leo Gallagher, in his official capacity as Lewis and Clark County Attorney, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Montana |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Held Unconstitutional
Jeffrey P. Gallant, Anita Y. Woudenberg, James Bopp, Jr., The Bopp Law Firm, Terre Haute, IN, John E. Bloomquist, James Edward Brown, Doney Crowley Bloomquist Payne Uda, Helena, MT, for Plaintiffs.
Andrew Huff, Michael G. Black, Montana Attorney General, Helena, MT, for Defendants.
FINDINGS OF FACT CONCLUSIONS OF LAW OPINION AND ORDER
The remainder of this case—the constitutionality of Montana's contribution limits in Montana Code Annotated § 13–37–216—came before the Court in a bench trial held from September 12, 2012, to September 14, 2012. The plaintiffs were represented by James Bopp, Jr., and the defendants were represented by Michael Black and Andrew Huff. The plaintiffs argue that the contribution limits are unconstitutional under the First Amendment. For the reasons below, the Court declares those limits unconstitutional and permanently enjoins the defendants from enforcing them.
Jurisdiction, venue, and parties
The plaintiffs seek injunctive and declaratory relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343(a), Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
Plaintiffs American Tradition Partnership PAC, Montana Right to Life Association PAC, Lake County Republican Central Committee, and Beaverhead County Republican Central Committee each constitute a “political committee” as defined by Mont. Code Ann. § 13–1–101(22). Plaintiffs Lake County Republican Central Committee and Beaverhead County Republican Central Committee further qualify as “political party organizations” within the meaning of Mont. Code Ann. § 13–37–216(3). Plaintiffs Doug Lair and Steve Dogiakos both want to make contributions above the contribution limits to candidates for various Montana elected offices. They would do so but for Montana's contribution limits. Plaintiff John Milanovich has run for State House in the past and intends to run again in the future.
As Commissioner of Political Practices, Defendant Jim Murry has authority to investigate violations of, enforce the provisions of, and hire attorneys to prosecute violations of, Montana Code Chapters 35 and 37 and the rules adopted to carry out these provisions. The Commissioner acts under color of state law and is sued in his official capacity. As Montana Attorney General, Defendant Steve Bullock has power to investigate and prosecute violations of Montana Code Chapters 35 and 37 by and through the county attorneys under his supervision. The Attorney General acts under color of state law and is sued in his official capacity. As Lewis and Clark County Attorney, Defendant Leo Gallagher has power to investigate and prosecute violations of Montana Code Chapters 35 and 37. The County Attorney acts under color of state law and is sued in his official capacity.
The plaintiffs filed this lawsuit in the Billings Division for the District of Montana on September 6, 2011. They claim that several of Montana's campaign finance and election laws are unconstitutional under the First Amendment. The statutes that they challenge are:
Montana Code Annotated § 13–35–225(3)(a), which requires authors of political election materials to disclose another candidate's voting record;
Montana Code Annotated § 13–37–131, which makes it unlawful for a person to misrepresent a candidate's public voting record or any other matter relevant to the issues of the campaign with knowledge that the assertion is false or with a reckless disregard of whether it is false;
Montana Code Annotated § 13–37–216(1), (5), which limits contributions that individuals and political committees may make to candidates;
Montana Code Annotated § 13–37–216(3), (5), which imposes an aggregate contribution limit on all political parties; and
Montana Code Annotated § 13–35–227, which prevents corporations from making either direct contributions to candidates or independent expenditures on behalf of a candidate.
The plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction on September 7, 2011, seeking to enjoin the defendants from enforcing each of these statutes. Before any action was taken on the motion, the defendants moved to change venue that Court granted that motion on January 31, 2012, and the case was transferred to the Helena Division assigned by lot to the undersigned.
On February 16, 2012, the Court held a hearing on the motion for a preliminary injunction and enjoined enforcement of Montana's vote-reporting requirement and political-civil libel statute ( See doc. 66); Mont. Code Ann. §§ 13–35–225(3)(a), 13–37–131. The Court denied the motion as to the remaining statutes. ( Id.)
The Court issued its scheduling order on March 9, 2012. The parties agreed that all of the issues regarding the contribution limits in Montana Code Annotated § 13–37–216(1), (3), and (5) would be resolved through a bench trial and that all other matters would be adjudicated by summary judgment. ( See doc. 73.) The Court and the parties all agreed to place this matter on an expedited schedule so that it will be resolved prior to this year's election.
The parties cross-moved for summary judgment, and the Court held a hearing on May 12, 2012, The Court granted both motions in part and denied them in part. ( See doc. 90.) The Court permanently enjoined Montana's vote-reporting requirement, political-civil libel statute, and ban on corporate contributions to political committees that the committees use for independent expenditures. SeeMont. Code Ann. §§ 13–35–225(3)(a), 13–37–131, 13–35–227. The Court, however, concluded that Montana's ban on direct and indirect corporate contributions to candidates and political parties is constitutional Id. at § 13–35–227. The parties cross-appealed that order but then voluntarily dismissed the appeals on July 23, 2012.
On June 20, 2012, the defendants—without leave of the Court—moved for summary judgment on the plaintiffs' claims concerning Montana's contribution limits. The Court denied the motion because, as explained in the scheduling order, the parties agreed that those claims would be resolved only through a bench trial. Moreover, the defendants' motion was untimely.
The Court held a bench trial from September 12, 2012, to September 14, 2012, in order to resolve the plaintiffs' claims related to Montana's campaign contribution limits in Montana Code Annotated § 13–37–216(1), (3), and (5), At the final pretrial conference immediately preceding the trial, the plaintiffs renewed their motion for summary judgment, and the Court took that motion under advisement.
James Bopp, Jr. argued the plaintiffs' case.1 Michael Black and Andrew Huff argued the defendants' case. Having considered the testimony of both the plaintiffs' and the defendants' witnesses, the Court finds the plaintiffs' witnesses more persuasive and that the facts weigh in favor of the plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs presented an expert, Clark Bensen, who analyzed the effect of Montana's contribution limits. Bensen analyzed “competitive” races in Montana, which he defined as elections where the margin of victory was 10% or less. Bensen studied 112 campaigns. Those campaigns were for either Public Service Commission offices or the Legislature. Most of these elections were for the 2008 or 2010 elections, but there were some for the 2004 and 2006 elections. Bensen considered only “itemized contributions,” which are contributions over $35.
Bensen concluded that these campaigns relied substantially on “maxed-out donors” for campaign revenue. Bensen calculated that, on average, 29% of the contributors in the campaigns had donated to the maximum level (26% for Democrats, and 34% for Republicans). Roughly 37% of the contributors were at a “near-max” level. On average, the campaigns that Bensen analyzed receive 86% of their itemized contributions from individuals (generating 74% of their overall revenue), 9% of their itemized contributions from political committees (generating 10% of their overall revenue), and 2% of their itemized contributions from political parties (generating 6% of their overall revenue). Many campaigns are self-financed to some degree.
Bensen found that the reliance on maxed-out donors is substantial: On average, 44% of the aggregate amount of funds raised by itemized contributions from individuals and political committees are generated by maxed-out donors. This percentage rises to 54% when considering “near-max” donors.
Of the 112 campaigns at issue (excepting one candidate from the Constitution Party), Bensen determined that 40% of the candidates received the maximum aggregate contribution limit from their political parties.
Of particular note and relevance here, the average campaign spends more than it raises, by about 7%. Bensen therefore concluded that campaigns struggle “to meet their perceived needs for operations and communication with voters.”
The Lake County Republican Central Committee (“Lake County Republicans”) is the local Republican Party for Lake County. It has a history of making contributions to Republican candidates, including in the last election. Darren Breckenridge testified...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lair v. Motl
...Eddleman 's approach to evaluating contribution limits and held Montana's limits were invalid under Randall . See Lair v. Murry , 903 F.Supp.2d 1077, 1093 (D. Mont. 2012). Montana appealed.Because the district court's decision came weeks before a state election, Montana sought a stay pendin......
-
Lair v. Bullock
...Id. at 264–65, 126 S.Ct. 2479 (Kennedy, J., concurring in the judgment).3. Lair's Challenge in the District Court: Lair v. Murry, 903 F.Supp.2d 1077 (D.Mont. 2012).Lair now challenges the Individual/PAC Limits, which the Ninth Circuit upheld in Eddleman , and the Party Limits, which were no......
- Jepsen v. Corr. Corp. of Am.