Shrink Missouri Government PAC v. Adams

• Decision Date: 23 July 1998
• Docket Number: No. 98-2351,98-2351
• Citation: 151 F.3d 763
• Parties: SHRINK MISSOURI GOVERNMENT PAC, a political action committee; Zev David Fredman, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Richard ADAMS, in his official capacity as a Member of the Missouri Ethics Commission; Patricia Flood, in her official capacity as a Member of the Missouri Ethics Commission; Robert Gardner, in his official capacity as a Member of the Missouri Ethics Commission; Ervin Harder, in his official capacity as a Member of the Missouri Ethics Commission; John Howald, in his official capacity as Chairman of the Missouri Ethics Commission; Elaine Spielbusch, in her official capacity as a Member of the Missouri Ethics Commission; Jeremiah W. Nixon, in his official capacity as Missouri Attorney General; Robert P. McCullough, in his official capacity as St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney, Defendants-Appellees. Joan Bray, a Missouri State Representative; Common Cause, a non-profit, non-partisan membership corporation organized under the laws of the District of Columbia, Movants.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

Page 763

151 F.3d 763

SHRINK MISSOURI GOVERNMENT PAC, a political action committee; Zev David Fredman, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Richard ADAMS, in his official capacity as a Member of the

Missouri Ethics Commission; Patricia Flood, in her official

capacity as a Member of the Missouri Ethics Commission;

Robert Gardner, in his official capacity as a Member of the

Missouri Ethics Commission; Ervin Harder, in his official

capacity as a Member of the Missouri Ethics Commission;

John Howald, in his official capacity as Chairman of the

Missouri Ethics Commission; Elaine Spielbusch, in her

official capacity as a Member of the Missouri Ethics

Commission; Jeremiah W. Nixon, in his official capacity as

Missouri Attorney General; Robert P. McCullough, in his

official capacity as St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney,

Defendants-Appellees.

Joan Bray, a Missouri State Representative; Common Cause, a

non-profit, non-partisan membership corporation

organized under the laws of the District

of Columbia, Movants.

No. 98-2351.

United States Court of Appeals,

Eighth Circuit.

July 23, 1998.

Before BOWMAN, Chief Judge, ROSS, and JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

On May 12, 1998, the District Court ¹ upheld Missouri's $275, $525, and $1,075 limits on campaign contributions. See Shrink Mo. Gov't PAC v. Adams, 5 F.Supp.2d 734 (E.D.Mo.1998) (upholding provisions of Mo. Ann. Stat. § 130.032 (West Supp.1998)). On May 14, 1998, plaintiffs Shrink Missouri Government PAC (SMG) and Zev David Fredman appealed from that judgment. They seek an injunction during the pendency of their appeal.

To be entitled to an injunction pending appeal, appellants must meet the requirements outlined in Dataphase Systems, Inc. v. C L Systems, Inc., 640 F.2d 109 (8th Cir.1981). Under Dataphase, they must show (1) the likelihood of success on the merits; (2) the likelihood of irreparable injury to appellants absent an injunction; (3) the absence of any substantial harm to other interested parties if an injunction is granted; and (4) the absence of any harm to the public interest if an injunction is granted. 640 F.2d at 114; see also Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 771, 107 S.Ct. 2113, 95 L.Ed.2d 724 (1987); Fargo Women's Health Org. v. Schafer, No. 93-1579, 1993 WL 603600 (8th Cir. Mar. 30, 1993), reprinted in Fargo Women's Health Org. v. Schafer, 18 F.3d 526, 538 (8th Cir.1994) (appendix). Having considered the briefing supplied by appellants in support of their motion and by the state appellees in opposition thereto, we conclude that all four factors support the entry of an order enjoining appellees from enforcing the challenged campaign contribution limits pending a final determination by this Court. ²

The most important of the Dataphase factors is the appellants' likelihood of success on the merits. In view of our prior case law, including Russell v. Burris, 146 F.3d 563 (8th Cir.1998), we conclude there is a strong likelihood that appellants will prevail when the case is heard on the merits. All campaign contribution limits restrict political speech, and thus they implicate the First Amendment. We are particularly concerned that it seems likely the state has failed in its burden of proof to show "that there is real or perceived undue influence or corruption attributable to large political contributions ... and ... that [the contribution limits] are narrowly tailored to address that reality or perception." Id. at 568. Similarly, we think it is likely the state has failed to show "that a reasonable person could perceive, on the basis of the evidence presented at trial, that such contributions make for undue influence or spawn corruption." Id. at 569. We note that the campaign contribution limits here at issue are, after adjustment for inflation,...