Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/176879819/Order-Denying-Pi
Timestamp: 2014-07-14 10:26:30
Document Index: 98375032

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 14', '§ 14', '§ 14', '§ 14', '§ 14', '§ 14', '§ 14', '§ 14', '§ 14']

Order Denying Pi
P. 1Order Denying PiOrder Denying PiRatings: (0)|Views: 3,502|Likes: 0Published by Nick ReismanMore info:Published by: Nick Reisman on Oct 17, 2013Copyright:Attribution Non-commercialAvailability:Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate content|Add to collectionSee moreSee lesshttp://www.scribd.com/doc/176879819/Order-Denying-Pi10/17/2013pdftextoriginal 1UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------------X NEW YORK PROGRESS ANDPROTECTION PAC,Plaintiff,-against-JAMES E. WALSH, ET AL.,Defendants.::::::::::::13 Civ. 6769 (PAC)OPINION & ORDER ------------------------------------------------------------XHONORABLE PAUL A. CROTTY, United States District Judge:Plaintiff New York Progress and Protection PAC (“NYPPP”), an independentexpenditure-only, unauthorized political committee, desires to solicit and accept contributions inexcess of the applicable statutory limitations set forth in N.Y. Elec. Law §§ 14-114(8) and 14-126. NYPPP intends to use these funds to expressly advocate for the Republican candidate for New York City mayor in the November 5, 2013 election and to oppose the Democraticcandidate. Although not a plaintiff in this action, the Complaint identifies Shaun McCutcheon, a businessman from Alabama and a long-time supporter of the Republican Party, as a person whowishes to support the Republican candidate for mayor. Mr. McCutcheon is willing to contribute$200,000 to NYPPP. He could expend that amount as an individual, but he chooses not to do so.Instead he wishes to give that amount to NYPPP but may not do so because New York’sstatutory limitation for individual contributions is set at $150,000. NYPPP submits that New York’s statutory limitation on contributions to an independentexpenditure-only political committee violates its rights under the First and FourteenthUSDC SDNYDOCUMENTELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC #: ____ DATE FILED: October 17, 2013
Case 1:13-cv-06769-PAC Document 31 Filed 10/17/13 Page 1 of 14
2Amendments of the Constitution. It seeks a declaration to that effect and moves for a preliminary injunction against enforcement of N.Y. Elec. Law §§ 14-114(8) and 14-126 so that itmay begin soliciting and accepting contributions in excess of the statutory limitation, andspending the proceeds on the New York City mayoral campaign. While Mr. McCutcheon’s potential contribution is $200,000, NYPPP asserts that there is no constitutionally permissiblelimitation on individual contributions to an independent expenditure-only political committee.
BACKGROUNDI. Statutory and Regulatory Background
New York limits the amount that an individual or entity may contribute to candidates, political parties, and political committees. Under N.Y. Elec. Law § 14-100(1), a “politicalcommittee” includes “any committee, political club or combination of one or more personsoperating or co-operating . . . to aid or take part in the election or defeat of a candidate for publicoffice . . . .” An organization is classified as an “authorized political committee” when it has been specifically authorized by the candidate to aid or take part in the election, other than bymaking contributions.
§ 14-112. On the other hand, an organization acts as an “unauthorized political committee” when it was not authorized by a candidate to raise or spend money on his or her behalf.
N.Y.S. Board of Elections,
,http://www.elections.ny.gov/CFCommittees.html#Other (last visited Oct. 16, 2013).Under N.Y. Elec. Law § 14-114(8), no individual “may contribute, loan or guarantee inexcess of one hundred fifty thousand dollars within the state in connection with the nominationor election of persons to state and local public offices . . . in any one calendar year.” Similarly, a political committee is barred from accepting contributions from individuals in excess of this$150,000 aggregate limit.
Id . § 14-126(2). A “contribution” is defined, in part, as:
Case 1:13-cv-06769-PAC Document 31 Filed 10/17/13 Page 2 of 14
3any payment, by any person other than a candidate or a political committee authorized bythe candidate, made in connection with the nomination for election or election of anycandidate, or any payment made to promote the success or defeat of a political party or principle, or of any ballot proposal . . . .
§ 14-100(9)(3). In contrast, contributions to candidates and authorized committees aresubject to the more restrictive limits set forth in § 14-114(1).There is no statutory definition for the term “independent expenditure,” but the NewYork Board of Elections interprets it to mean “the direct payment for goods or services” by anindividual or political committee in connection with an election.
N.Y.S. Board of Elections1981 Opinion No. 5 (July 27, 1981). According to the New York State Board of Elections, § 14-114 allows for “unlimited independent expenditures by persons or political committees.” N.Y.S.Board of Elections 1994 Opinion No. 3 (Apr. 25, 1994). Contributions to political committeesthat make only independent expenditures are limited, however, to $150,000 per individual per year.
Plaintiff NYPPP is registered as a “Type 9,” unauthorized political committee with the New York State Board of Elections and as a “political organization” under Section 527 of theInternal Revenue Code. Declaration of Craig Engle (“Engle Decl.”) ¶¶ 13, 3.
As a result, NYPPP describes itself as an “independent expenditure-only” political committee that does notcoordinate with any candidate or campaign.Engle Decl. ¶¶ 12-13. Craig Engle formed theorganization to assist the Republican candidate for New York City Mayor, Joe Lhota. EngleDecl. ¶ 5. Mr. Engle believed Mr. Lhota lacked the name recognition and campaign funds
“Mr. Engle is an experienced political operative with connections to numerous large donors.” Compl. ¶ 28. Hemakes “all decisions for NYPPP concerning the solicitation, acceptance, and use of funds.” Compl. ¶ 31. Mr. Engleis affiliated with a Washington law firm. Declaration of William J. McCann, Jr., Exs. A-B. NYPPP has only a maildrop in New York City. Hr’g Tr. 21:1-4.
Case 1:13-cv-06769-PAC Document 31 Filed 10/17/13 Page 3 of 14