ILNews

7th Circuit enjoins limits on 'super' PAC contributions

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A prominent Terre Haute attorney known for his work challenging campaign finance laws and regulations scored another legal victory after the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals enjoined state limits on contributions to what’s known as "super" political action committees.

Jim Bopp represents the Wisconsin Right to Life State Political Action Committee, which wants to contribute money to campaigns before the upcoming Wisconsin special-general elections this month. It describes these contributions as "political speech." Bopp argued the state shouldn’t be able to prohibit these independent contributions.

On Monday, a three-judge appellate panel stopped Wisconsin from trying to enforce money limits received by all types of PACs, including those “super PACs” born after the landmark ruling last year in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 130 S. Ct. 876 (2010). That decision allowed for unlimited contributions by corporations, unions, individuals, and private groups for political campaigns, and it effectively lifted many of the spending and contribution limits that had been in place for years federally and in states. Direct contributions and coordination from candidates and political parties is still prohibited, and the donors don’t have to be disclosed.

The four-page order issued by Circuit Judges David F. Hamilton, Daniel Manion, and Ilana Diamond Rovner found the Wisconsin super PAC demonstrated that it’s reasonably likely to succeed on the merits and that a pending Wisconsin Supreme Court case likely won’t resolve the constitutionality of the state law applied to the super PAC.

“Regardless of whether the Wisconsin Supreme Court upholds (Wis. Admin. Code GAB) §1.28, the aggregate contribution limit will apply to contributions WRTL-SPAC receives,” the order states, referring to similar holdings in the District of Columbia, and 4th and 9th Circuits.

With that, the federal panel granted an injunction against Wisconsin – and effectively other states that may try to impose similar limits on PACs – from enforcing a total contribution limit “on any non-coordinated expenditures by individuals or committees.” In this case, that limit was $10,000.

The judges also expedited the appeal, given the special elections are Aug. 9 and 16. The parties have until the first week of September to finish their briefing, and no extensions will be allowed without any extraordinary and unforeseen circumstances. Oral arguments are planned for the week of either Sept. 12 or 19, the order says.

“This is a victory for free speech by super PACs,” said Bopp, with law firm Bopp, Coleson & Bostrom. “It’s flatly unconstitutional to limit contributions to political committees.”
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT