1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

PERSONAL PAC, an Illinois not for profit ) 

corporation, MARCENA W. LOVE, ) 

GRACE ALLEN NEWTON, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiffs, ) Judge 

 ) 

 v. ) No. 

 ) 

WILLIAM M. MCGUFFAGE, Chairman of ) 

the Illinois State Board of Elections; ) 

JESSE R. SMART, Vice Chairman of the ) 

Illinois State Board of Elections; ) 

HAROLD D. BYERS, Member of the ) 

Illinois State Board of Elections; ) 

BETTY J. COFFRIN, Member of the ) 

Illinois State Board of Elections; ) 

ERNEST L. GOWEN, Member of the ) 

Illinois State Board of Elections; ) 

JUDITH C. RICE, Member of the ) 

Illinois State Board of Elections; ) 

BRYAN A. SCHNEIDER, Member of the ) 

Illinois State Board of Elections; ) 

CHARLES W. SCHOLZ, Member of the ) 

Illinois State Board of Elections, all in ) 

their official capacities, ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

COMPLAINT 

Nature of the Action 

1. This is a First Amendment case, challenging the constitutionality of 

two provisions of the Illinois Election Code. Under Section 5/9-2(d) of the Election 

Code, the Illinois General Assembly has prohibited any person from maintaining or 

establishing more than one political action committee (“PAC”). 10 ILCS 5/9-2(d). 

Case: 1:12-cv-01043 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/14/12 Page 1 of 15 PageID #:1
2 

Under Section 5/9-8.5(d) of the Code, with regard to state and local elections, the 

General Assembly has prohibited PACs from accepting contributions over specified 

limits, even if the funds are segregated in a separate account or PAC and used only 

for “independent expenditures.” 10 ILCS 5/9-8.5(d). Both provisions violate the 

First Amendment to the United States Constitution, as made clear by Citizens 

United v. FEC, 130 S. Ct. 876 (2010) and Wisconsin Right to Life State Political 

Action Committee v. Barland, 664 F.3d 139 (7th Cir. 2011). This complaint seeks a 

declaration that Sections 5/9-2(d) and 5/9-8.5(d) of the Illinois Election Code are 

unconstitutional. In addition, this complaint seeks injunctions preliminarily and 

permanently barring their enforcement. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2. The Court has jurisdiction over this case under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 

1343(a)(3), and 2201. 

3. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). 

PARTIES 

4. Plaintiff Personal PAC is an Illinois not-for-profit corporation and a 

bipartisan, statewide political action committee, dedicated to preserving 

reproductive rights and family planning services in Illinois and to electing prochoice candidates to state and local office. 

5. Plaintiff Marcena W. Love (“Love”) is a resident of Cook County, 

Illinois and the founder, Chair Emeritus, and one of the two original incorporators 

of Personal PAC. 

Case: 1:12-cv-01043 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/14/12 Page 2 of 15 PageID #:2
3 

6. Plaintiff Grace Allen Newton (“Newton”) is a resident of Cook County, 

Illinois, and a member of the Executive Committee of the Board of Directors of 

Personal PAC and a former Chairperson of the Board of Directors of Personal PAC. 

7. Defendants are the Illinois officials charged with enforcing the 

provisions of the Illinois Election Code at issue in this case. 

8. Defendant William M. McGuffage is the Chairman of the Illinois State 

Board of Elections (“ISBE”). He is sued in his official capacity. 

9. Defendant Jesse R. Smart is the Vice Chairman of the ISBE. He is 

sued in his official capacity. 

10. Defendant Harold D. Byers is a Member of the ISBE. He is sued in his 

official capacity. 

11. Defendant Betty J. Coffrin is a Member of the ISBE. She is sued in her 

official capacity. 

12. Defendant Ernest L. Gowen is a Member of the ISBE. He is sued in his 

official capacity 

13. Defendant Judith C. Rice is a Member of the ISBE. She is sued in her 

official capacity. 

14. Defendant Bryan A. Schneider is a Member of the ISBE. He is sued in 

his official capacity. 

15. Defendant Charles W. Scholz is a Member of the ISBE. He is sued in 

his official capacity. 

 

Case: 1:12-cv-01043 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/14/12 Page 3 of 15 PageID #:3
4 

STATEMENT OF FACTS 

16. Personal PAC was established in 1978 by Plaintiff Love and others 

who understood that the only way to ensure that the laws in Illinois would protect 

reproductive rights was to elect a majority of solidly pro-choice candidates in 

Illinois. Personal PAC was formed to raise money to recruit, support, and elect prochoice candidates across the political spectrum to state and local offices in Illinois. 

17. Since its formation, Personal PAC has become a powerful voice for 

reproductive justice in Illinois. Since 1990, Personal PAC has been extensively 

involved in the election campaigns of more than 150 successful pro-choice 

candidates for state and county offices. These elected officials work with Personal 

PAC to keep anti-choice restrictions from becoming law and to expand access to 

reproductive healthcare for all women and girls in Illinois. 

18. Personal PAC makes it possible for like-minded individuals who are 

pro-choice and supportive of family planning services to pool their funds and thus, 

to speak more loudly and influence the outcome of elections more profoundly than if 

they were acting alone. To carry out its mission, every year Personal PAC spends 

significant amounts of money on political activities such as voter identification 

programs, professionally developed direct mail, election day get-out-the-vote 

programs, television advertisements, and volunteer coordination. 

19. Recently, the law applicable to PACs has changed. It changed as a 

result of the enactment of new campaign finance laws in Illinois (Public Act 96-832 

(S.B. 1446), signed December 9, 2009, effective January 1, 2011) as well as the 

Case: 1:12-cv-01043 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/14/12 Page 4 of 15 PageID #:4
5 

United States Supreme Court’s decision Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S. Ct. 876 

(2010) and the Seventh Circuit’s application of that decision in Wisconsin Right to 

Life State Political Action Committee v. Barland, 664 F.3d 139 (7th Cir. 2011). 

20. This case arises because of the conflict between the holdings in 

Citizens United and Wisconsin Right to Life, on the one hand, and Illinois’s newlyenacted restrictions on contributions to PACs, as applied to PACs that make solely 

independent expenditures or have independent-expenditure-only accounts, on the 

other hand. 

21. In the idiom of campaign finance, an “independent expenditure” is 

spending for an activity that expressly advocates the election or defeat of a 

candidate but is not coordinated with any candidate or political party. More 

specifically, under Illinois law, 

“Independent expenditure” means any payment, gift, 

donation, or expenditure of funds (i) by a natural person 

or political committee for the purpose of making 

electioneering communications or of expressly advocating 

for or against the nomination for election, election, 

retention, or defeat of a clearly identifiable public official 

or candidate and (ii) that is not made in connection, 

consultation or concert with or at the request or 

suggestion of the public official or candidate, the public 

official’s or candidate’s designated political committee or 

campaign, or the agent or agents of the public official, 

candidate, or political committee or campaign. 

Cf. 11 C.F.R. 100.16 (for the similar definition used under federal law). 

22. Under the holdings in Citizens United and Wisconsin Right to Life, 

neither the federal government nor the states can place dollar limits on 

Case: 1:12-cv-01043 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/14/12 Page 5 of 15 PageID #:5
6 

independent-expenditure-only PACs or PACs that have independent-expenditureonly accounts. 

23. Personal PAC desires to exercise this First Amendment right, as 

articulated and guaranteed by Citizens United and Wisconsin Right to Life, to raise 

and spend funds for independent expenditures without contribution or spending 

limits. However, Personal PAC is prevented from doing so by the two provisions of 

the Illinois Election Code that are the subject of this lawsuit — Sections 5/9-2(d) 

and 5/9-8.5(d). 10 ILCS 5/9-2(d) and 10 ILCS 5/9-8.5(d). 

24. As a result of Code Sections 5/9-2(d) and 5/9-8.5(d), Personal PAC 

cannot currently: (a) lawfully receive more than $10,000 from any individual or 

$20,000 from any corporation, labor organization or association during a single 

calendar year; or (b) as an alternative to raising and spending the money itself, 

establish one or more additional PACs to receive and spend funds in excess of 

Illinois’s statutory contribution limits. 

25. Personal PAC cannot lawfully establish one or more additional PACs 

to receive and spend funds it cannot receive or spend itself because of Section 10 

ILCS 5/9-2(d), which provides that: 

Beginning January 1, 2011, no natural person, trust, 

partnership, committee, association, corporation, or other 

organization or group of persons forming a political action 

committee shall maintain or establish more than one 

political action committee. 

Case: 1:12-cv-01043 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/14/12 Page 6 of 15 PageID #:6
7 

26. At the same time, Section 5/9-8.5(d) imposes statutory limits on the 

total contributions Personal PAC or any other PAC can receive, including 

independent-expenditure-only funds, by providing, in relevant part, that: 

During an election cycle, a political action committee 

may not accept contributions with an aggregate value 

over the following: (i) $10,000 from any individual, (ii) 

$20,000 from any corporation, labor organization, 

political party committee, or association, or (iii) $50,000 

from a political action committee or candidate political 

committee. A political committee many not accept 

contributions from a ballot initiative committee. 

27. But for the prohibitions contained in sections 5/9-2(d) and 5/9-8.5(d) of 

the Illinois Election Code, Personal PAC would immediately: (a) create a 

segregated, independent-expenditure-only account for the purpose of soliciting and 

receiving contributions in excess of current limits and for use solely for 

independent expenditures to elect pro-choice candidates, both in the current 

election cycle and in future election cycles; (b) establish one or more additional 

independent-expenditure-only PACs to receive those contributions; or (c) become a 

PAC that exclusively makes independent expenditures, again, to receive those 

contributions. However, Sections 5/9-2(d) and 5/9-8.5(d) of the Illinois Election 

Code have prevented Personal PAC from exercising its First Amendment rights to 

make these choices. 

28. But for Sections 5/9-2(d) and 5/9-8.5(d), Personal PAC would solicit 

and raise funds in excess of the current statutory caps, in the current election cycle 

and in future election cycles; would segregate those funds in an independentCase: 1:12-cv-01043 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/14/12 Page 7 of 15 PageID #:7
8 

expenditure-only account or PAC; and would use those funds, starting 

immediately, to pay to advocate for the election of candidates who are pro-choice 

and supportive of family planning services and to defeat candidates who are not, 

without coordinating with any public officials or candidates or their political 

committees, campaigns, or agents. 

29. Because of the restrictions of Sections 5/9-2(d) and 5/9-8.5(d) of the 

Election Code, Personal PAC estimates that it was prevented from receiving more 

than $100,000 of available donor funds during calendar year 2011, money that 

Personal PAC would have maintained in an independent-expenditure-only account or 

additional PAC. This is money that Personal PAC had a First Amendment right to 

receive and spend for independent expenditures under the holdings in Citizens 

United and Wisconsin Right to Life. It has been prevented from receiving that money 

solely because of Sections 5/9-2(d) and 5/9-8.5(d) of the Election Code. 

30. Because of the restrictions of Sections 5/9-2(d) and 5/9-8.5(d) of the 

Election Code, Personal PAC estimates that it will be prevented from receiving tens 

of thousands of dollars in available donor funds during calendar year 2012, money 

that Personal PAC would maintain in an independent-expenditure-only account or 

additional PAC. This is money that Personal PAC has a First Amendment right to 

receive and spend for independent expenditures under the holdings in Citizens 

United and Wisconsin Right to Life. 

31. Because of the restriction of 5/9-8.5(d) of the Election Code, Personal 

PAC has been unable to cash or deposit a check that will become void on May 23, 

Case: 1:12-cv-01043 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/14/12 Page 8 of 15 PageID #:8
9 

2012, in the amount of $17,688.26, because the ISBE has taken the position that 

cashing or depositing that check would be unlawful under the contribution limits. 

32. Without being able to raise money for the purpose of independent 

expenditures in excess of the current statutory limits, Personal PAC cannot fully and 

effectively accomplish its mission of preserving reproductive rights and family 

planning services in Illinois and electing pro-choice candidates to state and local 

office. 

33. The First Amendment rights of Personal PAC’s supporters are likewise 

unconstitutionally infringed by Sections 5/9-2(d) and 5/9-8.5(d) of the Election Code. 

But for those provisions of the Election Code, Plaintiffs Love and Newton, among 

others, are ready, willing, and able to donate, and would immediately donate, more 

than $10,000 to Personal PAC or to any account or additional PAC that Personal 

PAC would establish for the sole purpose of making independent expenditures. 

34. If Personal PAC were unable to receive unlimited donations itself, for 

reasons either logistical or legal, then, but for Section 5-9/2(d) and 5/-9-8.5(d) of the 

Election Code, Plaintiffs Love and Newton are also ready, willing, and able to 

establish and maintain one or more additional independent-expenditure-only PACs, 

solely for the purpose of soliciting and receiving contributions in excess of current 

limits and using them to make independent expenditures to elect pro-choice 

candidates. 

35. The contribution limits contained in 10 ILCS 5/9-8.5(d) and the 

prohibition on the establishment and maintenance of more than one PAC to make 

Case: 1:12-cv-01043 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/14/12 Page 9 of 15 PageID #:9
10 

independent expenditures contained in 10 ILCS 5/9-2(d) severely burden Personal 

PAC’s right to associate with its donors, potential donors, and other like-minded 

individuals. They also severely burden Plaintiffs Love’s and Newton’s rights to 

associate with Personal PAC, its other donors, potential donors, and other likeminded individuals for the purpose of expressly advocating for the election of state 

and local candidates who are pro-choice and supportive of family planning services 

and defeating state and local candidates who are not. 

36. The ISBE has confirmed that, notwithstanding the decisions in 

Citizens United and Wisconsin Right to Life, it intends to continue to apply Sections 

5/9-2(d) and 5/9-8.5(d) of the Election Code both to limit contributions to 

independent-expenditure-only PACs or PACs with independent-expenditure-only 

accounts, and to prohibit any person, natural or corporate, from maintaining or 

establishing more than one PAC. 

37. Under 10 ILCS 5/9-23, a violation of Sections 5/9-2(d) and/or 5/9-8.5(d) 

carries civil penalties of up to $5,000 for individuals and up to $10,000 for state 

officers and candidates and political committees for statewide office. A violation also 

carries potential criminal penalties. 

38. As a result of the restrictions of 10 ILCS 5/9-8.5(d) and 10 ILCS 5/9-

2(d), plaintiffs have suffered irreparable injury to their rights under the First 

Amendment and have no adequate remedy at law. 

 

Case: 1:12-cv-01043 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/14/12 Page 10 of 15 PageID #:10
11 

COUNT I 

(42 U.S.C. § 1983) 

Contribution Limits – Personal PAC 

39. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each and every 

allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 

40. The contributions limits contained in 10 ILCS 5/9-8.5(d) severely 

burden Personal PAC’s rights to freedom of speech and association under the First 

Amendment when applied to funds raised, maintained, and spent solely for the 

purpose of independent expenditures. 

41. The application of the contribution limits contained in Section 5/9-

8.5(d) violate Personal PAC’s donors’ and potential donors’ rights to freedom of 

speech and association under the First Amendment when applied to funds raised, 

maintained, and spent solely for the purpose of independent expenditures. 

42. Funds raised for and spent by Personal PAC for independent 

expenditures pose no threat of quid pro quo corruption or its appearance because 

independent expenditures are not contributions to, or coordinated with, the 

activities of political candidates or nominees. 

COUNT II 

(42 U.S.C. § 1983) 

Contribution Limits – Individual Plaintiffs 

43. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each and every 

allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 

44. The contributions limits contained in 10 ILCS 5/9-8.5(d) severely 

burden Plaintiffs Love’s and Newton’s rights to freedom of speech and association 

Case: 1:12-cv-01043 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/14/12 Page 11 of 15 PageID #:11
12 

under the First Amendment when applied to funds raised, maintained, and spent 

solely for the purpose of independent expenditures. Both are ready, willing, and 

able to donate more than $10,000 each to finance independent expenditures by 

Personal PAC or to any account or additional PAC that Personal PAC or Plaintiffs 

Love or Newton would establish for the sole purpose of making independent 

expenditures. 

45. The money that Plaintiffs Love and Newton would donate to Personal 

PAC for independent expenditures poses no threat of quid pro quo corruption or its 

appearance because independent expenditures are not contributions to, or 

coordinated with, the activities of political candidates or nominees. 

COUNT III 

(42 U.S.C. § 1983) 

Multiple PACs – Personal PAC 

46. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each and every 

allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 

47. Illinois’s prohibition on the establishment or maintenance of “more 

than one” political action committee, contained in 10 ILCS 5/9-2(d), severely 

burdens Personal PAC’s rights to freedom of speech and association under the First 

Amendment to the extent it prohibits the formation of an independent-expenditureonly PAC. 

48. The establishment and maintenance of more than one PAC to make 

independent expenditures poses no threat of quid pro quo corruption or its 

Case: 1:12-cv-01043 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/14/12 Page 12 of 15 PageID #:12
13 

appearance because independent expenditures are not contributions to, or 

coordinated with, the activities of political candidates or nominees. 

COUNT IV 

(42 U.S.C. § 1983) 

Multiple PACs – Plaintiffs Love and Newton 

49. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each and every 

allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 

50. Illinois’ prohibition on the establishment or maintenance of “more than 

one” political action committee contained in 10 ILCS 5/9-2(d), severely burdens 

Plaintiffs Love’s and Newton’s rights to freedom of speech and association under the 

First Amendment to the extent it prohibits the formation of an independentexpenditure-only PAC. 

51. The establishment and maintenance of PACs to make independent 

expenditures poses no threat of quid pro quo corruption or its appearance because 

independent expenditures are not contributions to, or coordinated with, the 

activities of political candidates or nominees. 

Prayer for Relief 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for the following relief: 

A. A declaration that the contributions limits contained in 10 ILCS 5/9-

8.5(d), and in any applicable rules and regulations regarding that provision, violate 

the First Amendment when applied to funds raised for independent expenditures. 

B. A declaration that the First Amendment is also violated by the 

prohibition, contained in 10 ILCS 5/9-2(d), and in any applicable rules and 

Case: 1:12-cv-01043 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/14/12 Page 13 of 15 PageID #:13
14 

regulations regarding that provision, against the establishment or maintenance of 

“more than one PAC,” by any person natural person, trust, partnership, committee, 

association, corporation, or other organization or group of persons, to the extent it 

prohibits the formation of an additional PAC created solely with funds raised for 

independent expenditures. 

C. Preliminary and permanent injunctions enjoining Defendants from 

enforcing the contributions limits contained in 10 ILCS 5/9-8.5(d), and any 

applicable rules and regulations regarding that provision, when applied to funds 

raised, maintained, and spent solely for the purpose of independent expenditures, 

and 10 ILCS 5/9-2(d), and any applicable rules and regulations regarding that 

provision, to the extent it prohibits a natural person, trust, partnership, committee, 

association, corporation, or other organization or group of persons from maintaining 

or establishing an additional PAC solely with funds raised for independent 

expenditures. 

D. Costs and attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 or any 

applicable statute or authority. 

 

Case: 1:12-cv-01043 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/14/12 Page 14 of 15 PageID #:14
15 

E. All other relief that the Court deems just and appropriate. 

Dated: February 14, 2012 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 /s/ Juliet V. Berger-White 

 

Matthew J. Piers 

Joshua Karsh 

Juliet Berger-White 

HUGHES SOCOL PIERS

 RESNICK & DYM, LTD. 

70 W. Madison, Suite 4000 

Chicago, IL 60602 

312.580.0100

Case: 1:12-cv-01043 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/14/12 Page 15 of 15 PageID #:15