South Carolina Citizens For Life Inc. v. Krawcheck

• Decision Date: 13 September 2010
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 4:06–cv–2773–TLW.
• Citation: 759 F.Supp.2d 708
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
• Parties: SOUTH CAROLINA CITIZENS FOR LIFE, INC., Plaintiff,v.Kenneth C. KRAWCHECK, Marvin D. Infinger, Edward E. Duryea, Johnnie M. Walters, Robert A. Bruce, Priscilla L. Tanner, Susan P. McWilliams, all in their official capacities as commissioners of the South Carolina Ethics Commission, Defendants.

759 F.Supp.2d 708

SOUTH CAROLINA CITIZENS FOR LIFE, INC., Plaintiff,

v.Kenneth C. KRAWCHECK, Marvin D. Infinger, Edward E. Duryea, Johnnie M. Walters, Robert A. Bruce, Priscilla L. Tanner, Susan P. McWilliams, all in their official capacities as commissioners of the South Carolina Ethics Commission, Defendants.

Civil Action No. 4:06–cv–2773–TLW.

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Florence Division.

Sept. 13, 2010.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HEREWest CodenotesHeld UnconstitutionalS.C.Code 1976, § 8–13–1300(6) James Bopp, Jr., Jeffrey P. Gallant, Bopp Coleston and Bostrom, Terre Haute, IN, Kevin A. Hall, Matthew Todd Carroll, Hall and Bowers, Columbia, SC, for Plaintiff.Christian Stegmaier, Joel Wyman Collins, Jr., Robert Fredrick Goings, Collins and Lacy, Columbia, SC, for Defendants.

ORDER

TERRY L. WOOTEN, District Judge.

South Carolina Citizens for Life, Inc. (“plaintiff”) filed this civil action for declaratory and injunctive relief against Kenneth C. Krawcheck, Marvin D. Infinger, Edward E. Duryea, Johnnie M. Walters, Robert A. Bruce, Priscilla L. Tanner, and Susan P. McWilliams (“defendants”), all in their official capacities as commissioners of the South Carolina Ethics Commission, challenging the constitutionality of South Carolina law. The plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment on September 8, 2009. (Doc. # 108). The defendants filed a response to this motion on October 2, 2009. (Doc. # 118). The plaintiff filed a reply on October 20, 2009. (Doc. # 123). The defendants also filed a cross-motion for summary judgment on October 2, 2009, to which the defendants filed a response on October 27, 2009. (Docs. # 117, # 124). The defendants filed a supplemental memorandum on May 10, 2010, to which the plaintiff replied on May 11, 2010. (Docs. # 129, # 130). This Court held a hearing on the parties' motions on May 13, 2010. The plaintiff filed a supplemental memorandum on September 13, 2010. (Doc. # 133). The Court has carefully considered the motions, memoranda, and arguments of the parties. This matter is now ready for disposition.

FACTS

The plaintiff South Carolina Citizens for Life, Inc. is a non-profit membership corporation that is incorporated in the State of South Carolina. (Am. Compl.). South Carolina Citizens for Life, Inc. is the state affiliate of the National Right to Life Committee. (Am. Compl., Ex C). The corporate office is located in Columbia, South Carolina, and the plaintiff has a local chapter that meets in Florence County, South Carolina. (Am. Compl.). According to the plaintiff's bylaws, the primary purpose of the corporation is to “gather and disseminate factual information on the human life issues of fetal development, abortion and abortion alternatives, infanticide and euthanasia by developing and maintaining educational programs.” (Am. Compl., Ex B). The plaintiff notes that one means it uses to advance its pro-life mission is to educate the public about the positions of candidates for public office on pro-life issues. (Am. Compl.). The record indicates that the plaintiff's organization also maintains an educational fund as well as separately funded state and federal internal political action committees, or PACs. (Am. Compl., Ex C).

In 1991, South Carolina enacted the Ethics Act to allow state officials to monitor and oversee the state election process. The South Carolina Ethics Commission is an agency of the State of South Carolina responsible for the enforcement of the Ethics Act. The mission of the Ethics Commission is to carry out the General Assembly's mandate to maintain public trust by ensuring compliance with the state's laws on financial disclosure; lobbyist/lobbyist's principal disclosure and campaign disclosure; regulating lobbyists and lobby organizations; issuing advisory opinions interpreting the statute; educating public officeholders and the public on the requirements of the state's ethics laws; and prosecuting violators either administratively or criminally. State Ethics Commission, Mission Statement, http:// ethics. sc. gov/ aboutus/ Commission/ Agency+ Mission. htm. The statutes pertaining to the Commission and its governance, powers, and responsibilities are found at Title 8, Chapter 13 of the 1976 Code of Laws. The General Assembly has assigned numerous responsibilities to the Commission. See S.C.Code Ann. § 8–13–320. Of particular importance to this case, the Commission has the authority to determine whether a person has failed to comply with the disclosure requirements contained in the Ethics Act, S.C.Code Ann. § 8–13–320(7); to request that the attorney general initiate a civil or criminal action for the purposes of enforcing the Ethics Act, S.C.Code Ann. § 8–13–320(9); to receive and investigate complaints for failure to file statements required by the Ethics Act, S.C.Code Ann. § 8–13–320(9); and to recommend disciplinary action for violations of the Ethics Act, S.C.Code Ann. § 8–13–320(10).

The plaintiff alleges that it planned to distribute a direct mail “voter guide” in advance of the November 7, 2006 general election for District 79 of the South Carolina House of Representatives. The voter guide was to be compiled based on responses to a Candidate Survey forwarded to the candidates by the plaintiff.¹ The proposed voter guides would provide the candidates' political affiliation, as well as their positions on various pro-life issues. The plaintiff alleges that it planned to spend approximately $15,000 to create and distribute the voter guides for the 2006 House District 79 general election. The plaintiff also alleges that it intends to distribute materially similar voter guides before future elections that will fall under the statutes challenged in this case.²

On September 22, 2006, SCCL requested an informal and formal advisory opinion from the defendants concerning the legality of the voter guides. (Am. Compl., Ex. E). On September 29, 2006, the defendants responded to the request by declining to render an informal opinion. (Am. Compl., Ex. F). Under South Carolina law, the Ethics Commission is not required to issue an informal advisory opinion.³ In its response, the Commission stated that it could not render an informal advisory opinion because the issues raised were never previously addressed by the Commission. (Am. Compl., Ex. F). The Commission added that “since the constitutionality of § 8–13–1300(31)(c) is currently in litigation,⁴ it is the staff's opinion that this matter should be resolved by a formal opinion of the full Commission,” and noted that “[t]he next meeting of the Commission is scheduled for November 15, 2006.” (Am. Compl., Ex. F). The defendants inquired as to whether SCCL wanted this issue placed on the agenda for the next meeting. (Am. Compl., Ex. F). Following this communication, SCCL filed the instant action on October 4, 2006.

In this action, the plaintiff challenges the constitutionality of two provisions of the South Carolina Ethics Act. More specifically, the plaintiff alleges (1) the term “committee” found in S.C.Code Ann. § 8–13–1300(6) is facially unconstitutional for overbreadth; (2) the term “influence” found in S.C.Code Ann. § 8–13–1300(31)(c) is facially unconstitutional for overbreadth; and (3) the term “influence” found in S.C.Code Ann. § 8–13–1300(31)(c) is facially unconstitutional for vagueness. In its briefing, the plaintiff has further alleged that these specific provisions are unconstitutional as-applied to the plaintiff's organization.

SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c), the defendants are entitled to summary judgment if the pleadings, responses to discovery, and the record reveal that “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” A genuine issue of material fact exists “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). As the party seeking summary judgment, the moving party bears the initial responsibility of informing this Court of the basis for its motion. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). This requires that the moving party identify those portions of the “pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,” which it believes demonstrate the absence of genuine issues of material fact. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548; see also Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249, 106 S.Ct. 2505.

Though the moving party bears this initial responsibility, the nonmoving party must then produce “specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(2); see Celotex, 477 U.S. at 317, 106 S.Ct. 2548. In satisfying this burden, the nonmoving party must offer more than a mere “scintilla of evidence” that a genuine issue of material fact exists, Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252, 106 S.Ct. 2505, or that there is “some metaphysical doubt” as to material facts. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). Rather, the nonmoving party must produce evidence on which a jury could reasonably find in its favor. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252, 106 S.Ct. 2505.

In analyzing a motion for summary judgment, this Court construes all facts and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See Miltier v. Beorn, 896 F.2d 848 (4th Cir.1990). Summary judgment is proper “[w]here the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party, there [being] no genuine issue for trial.” Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348 (1986) (internal quotations omitted).

I. Overbreadth Challenge to South Carolina's Definition of “Committee.”

In its first ground for relief, the plaintiff asserts that the phrase “committee” as defined by the South Carolina Ethics...