Source: http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca8/10-3126/103126p-2011-05-16.html
Timestamp: 2013-12-09 05:34:32
Document Index: 41634865

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 211', '§\n10', '§ 10', '§ 10', '§ 211', '§\n10', '§ 10', '§ 10', '§ 10', '§ 10', '§ 10', '§ 211', '§ 10']

MN Citizens Concerned for Life, et al v. Swanson, et al :: Eighth Circuit :: US Courts of Appeals Cases :: US Federal Case Law :: US Case Law :: US Law :: Justia
Justia > US Law > US Case Law > US Federal Case Law > US Courts of Appeals Cases > Eighth Circuit > MN Citizens Concerned for Life, et al v. Swanson, et al	NEW - Receive Justia's FREE Daily Newsletters of Opinion Summaries for the US Supreme Court, all US Federal Appellate Courts & the 50 US State Supreme Courts and Weekly Practice Area Opinion Summaries Newsletters. Subscribe Now
Justia.com Opinion Summary: Appellants, three Minnesota corporations seeking to advance their respective social and commercial interests, filed suit to enjoin Minnesota election laws on independent expenditures and corporate contributions to candidates and political parties and moved for a preliminary injunction. At issue was whether the district court erred in failing to grant a preliminary injunction because appellants failed to show a likelihood of success. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant's request for an injunction where appellants were unlikely to prevail on the issue of whether Minnesota functionally retained a ban on corporate independent expenditures; appellants were unlikely to prevail on their claim of improper tailoring; and appellants were unlikely to prevail on the direct-contribution issue or the independent-expenditure issue.Receive FREE Daily Opinion Summaries by Email
Court Description:	Civil case - Elections and Campaign Contributions. In an action seeking to invalidate Minnesota's ban on corporations making direct contributions to candidates and political parties and Minnesota's regulation of how corporations may make independent expenditures, the district court did not err in denying plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction as plaintiffs were unlikely to prevail on the merits of their claims; Minnesota's provisions of corporate independent expenditures are similar in purpose and effect to the disclosure laws the Supreme Court upheld in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission, 130 S. Ct. 876 (2010) and, as a result, plaintiffs are unlikely to prevail on the issue of whether Minnesota impermissibly retained a ban on corporate independent expenditures; nor are plaintiffs likely to prevail on the claim that the laws are not sufficiently tailored given the heightened level of constitutional scrutiny or the claim that the state's ban on direct corporate contributions is unconstitutional. Chief Judge Riley, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
The court issued a Revised version of this opinion on December 31, 1969
The court issued a Revised version of this opinion on December 8, 2013
No. 10-3126
Minnesota Citizens Concerned for
Life, Inc.; The Taxpayers League of
Minnesota; Coastal Travel Enterprises,
Lori Swanson, Minnesota Attorney
General, in her official capacity; Bob
Milbert; John Scanlon; Terri Ashmore;
Hilda Bettermann; Felicia Boyd; Greg
McCullough, Minnesota Campaign
Members, in their official capacities;
Raymond Krause, Chief Administrative
Law Judge of the Minnesota Office of
Administrative Hearings, in his official
capacity; Eric Lipman, Assistant Chief
Administrative Law Judge of the
Minnesota Office of Administrative
Hearings, in his official capacity;
Manuel Cervantes; Beverly Heydinger;
Richard Luis; Steve Mihalchick;
Barbara Neilson; Kathleen Sheehy,
Administrative Law Judges of the
Hearings, in their official capacities;
Michael Freeman, Hennepin County
Campaign Legal Center; Democracy
21; and The Brennan Center for Justice, *
Amici on Behalf of Appellee.
Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, Inc., The Taxpayers League of
Minnesota, and Coastal Travel Enterprises, LLC, (collectively "Minnesota Citizens")
are Minnesota corporations challenging several provisions of Minnesota's corporate
election laws. Specifically, Minnesota Citizens seeks to invalidate (1) Minnesota's
ban on corporations making direct contributions to candidates and political parties
and (2) Minnesota's regulation of how corporations may make independent
expenditures, as defined in the next section. Minnesota Citizens brings this challenge
in response to the Supreme Court's recent decision in Citizens United v. Federal
Election Commission, 130 S. Ct. 876 (2010). At the outset of the proceeding below,
Minnesota Citizens moved for a preliminary injunction. The district court1 denied the
motion, and Minnesota Citizens appeals this denial. We affirm.
The First Amendment provides in part that "Congress shall make no law . . .
abridging the freedom of speech." Interpreting this provision, the Supreme Court in
Citizens United overruled its prior precedent and held that the government may not
ban corporations from making independent expenditures, that is, "political speech
presented to the electorate that is not coordinated with a candidate," advocating the
election or defeat of a candidate. 130 S. Ct. at 910, 913. The Supreme Court further
held that the government may not force corporations wishing to make independent
expenditures to speak through "separate segregated fund[s]," known as political
action committees ("PACs"), at least where the PACs are "separate association[s]
from the corporation" and where the PACs are subject to "burdensome" regulations.
Id. at 897. The Supreme Court, however, upheld a federal disclaimer and disclosure
law at issue and did not expressly overrule its prior precedent allowing the
government to prohibit direct corporate contributions to candidates and other entities,
like political parties, that work in conjunction with candidates. Id. at 886, 917.
In response, Minnesota amended portions of its election laws. Minnesota
retained a longstanding prohibition on direct corporate contributions to candidates
and affiliated entities. Minn. Stat. Â§ 211B.15, subdiv. 2. At most, according to
Minnesota Citizens, Minnesota permits corporations to establish conduit funds to
which others may contribute. See id. subdiv. 16. In contrast, Minnesota amended
its regulations on corporate independent expenditures and created two means by
The Honorable Donovan W. Frank, United States District Judge for the
which corporations could make such expenditures. Id., subdiv. 3; Minn. Stat. Â§
10A.12, subdiv. 1a. Minnesota first defined an independent expenditure as:
an expenditure expressly advocating the election or defeat of a clearly
identified candidate, if the expenditure is made without the express or
implied consent, authorization, or cooperation of, and not in concert
with or at the request or suggestion of, any candidate or any candidate's
Minn Stat. Â§ 10A.01, subdiv. 18. Minnesota then required corporations wishing to
make such expenditures to either "form[] and register[] an independent expenditure
political fund if the expenditure is in excess of $100 or [contribute to an] existing
independent expenditure political committee or political fund." Id. Â§ 10A.12, subdiv.
1a; see also Minn. Stat. Â§ 211B.15, subdiv. 3.
If a corporation chooses to establish a political fund, then the corporation and
its political fund are subject to a series of statutory requirements. Under the revised
Minnesota law, the corporation must first appoint a treasurer for the political fund,
and the treasurer must then register the fund within fourteen days by filling out a twopage form disclosing, among other things, a listing of all of the fund's depositories
and the names and addresses of the fund, treasurer, and any deputy treasurers. Id. Â§Â§
10A.12, subdiv. 3, 10A.14, subdivs. 1, 2. The political fund must also segregate its
funds from any other funds. Id. Â§ 10A.12, subdiv. 2. If a corporation is the sole
donor to its fund, a corporation can segregate funds with an internal bookkeeping
device, such as a spreadsheet. Once established, the political fund must further file
periodic, detailed reports. As the district court explained:
The fund must file five reports during a general-election year and one
report during a non-general-election year. Minn. Stat. Â§ 10A.20. The
report must disclose the amount of liquid assets at the beginning of a
reporting period; the name and address of each individual or association
whose contributions within the year exceed $100; the amount and date
of such contributions; the sum of contributions during the reporting
period; each loan made or received that exceeds $100; the name and
address of the lender; receipts over $100 during the reporting period not
otherwise listed; the sum of those receipts; the name and address of each
individual or association to whom the reporting entity made
expenditures within the year exceeding $100; the sum of all
expenditures made by the reporting entity during the reporting period;
the name and address of each political committee, political fund,
principal campaign committee, or party unit to which contributions in
excess of $100 were made; the sum of all contributions; the amount and
nature of any advance of credit incurred; the name and address of each
individual or association to whom noncampaign disbursements have
been made that aggregate in excess of $100 and the purpose of each
noncampaign disbursement; the sum of all noncampaign disbursements;
and the name and address of a nonprofit corporation that provides
administrative assistance to the political committee or political fund.
Minn. Stat. Â§ 10A.20.
Moreover, the treasurer for a political fund must keep certain records and make them
available for an audit. Id. Â§ 10A.13. Finally, if a political fund wants to dissolve,
then it must settle its debts, dispose of its remaining assets, and file a termination
report. Id. Â§ 10A.24. One method in which a political fund can dispose of its assets
is by returning contributions to their sources. Id. Â§ 211B.12; Â§ 10A.01, subdiv. 26(2).
If, on the other hand, a corporation chooses to contribute to an existing political
fund, then the corporation is subject to fewer statutory requirements. A for-profit
corporation need only provide its name and address for contributions made from its
general treasury. A non-profit corporation, by contrast, would also need to disclose
information regarding the underlying source of the contribution if the corporation
contributed more than $5,000 to a political fund or committee. Similarly, a
corporation that solicits and receives contributions for a political fund must disclose
the source of the contributions.
In this case, appellants are three Minnesota corporations seeking to advance
their respective social and commercial interests. Minnesota Citizens Concerned for
Life is a non-profit corporation seeking to "secure protections for innocent human life
from conception until natural death through effective education, legislation, and
political action." The Taxpayer League of Minnesota is a non-profit corporation
advocating for "lower taxes, limited government, and full empowerment of taxpaying
citizens." Finally, Coastal Travel Enterprises, LLC, is a for-profit, limited-l