The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit this week issued its decision in Wisconsin Right to Life State Political Action Committee v. Barland, which is one of three lawsuits challenging Wisconsin’s contribution laws.

At issue in this case was Wis. Stat. § 11.26(4), which provides: “No individual may make any contribution or contributions to all candidates for state and local offices and to any individuals who or committees which are subject to a registration requirement under s. 11.05, including legislative campaign committees of a political party, to the extent of more than a total of $10,000 in any calendar year.”

Facts

In anticipation of the 2010 general elections, Wisconsin Right to Life and its State Political Action Committee filed a federal lawsuit challenging various Wisconsin campaign-finance laws under the First Amendment. The suit was put on hold at the defendant’s, the Government Accountability Board members, request until the Wisconsin Supreme Court decided a similar challenge, Wisconsin Prosperity Network v. Myse, No. 2010AP001937 (Wis. filed Aug. 9, 2010).

In preparation for the summer of 2011 recall elections, Wisconsin Right to Life PAC petitioned the federal court to stop waiting on the Wisconsin Supreme Court and enjoin § 11.26(4) so it could raise unlimited funds for the recall elections. A temporary injunction on the contribution limits was granted in August.

7th Circuit Opinion

In an opinion written by Judge Diane Sykes, the court agreed that the temporary injunction was proper and remanded the case with directions to permanently enjoin enforcement of § 11.26(4).

The opinion relies on the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United.

“[A]fter Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S. Ct. 876 (2010), section 11.26(4) is unconstitutional to the extent that it limits contributions to committees engaged solely in independent spending for political speech. Citizens United held that independent expenditures do not pose a threat of actual or apparent quid pro quo corruption, which is the only governmental interest strong enough to justify restrictions on political speech. Id. at 909-11. Accordingly, applying the $10,000 aggregate annual cap to contributions made to organizations engaged only in independent spending for political speech violates the First Amendment.”

According to the ruling, the limit is only unconstitutional to the extent that it limits PACs like Wisconsin Right to Life “that only engage in independent spending for political speech,” or in other words, do not contribute money to political candidates’ campaigns.

This post was authored by GLLF staff attorney Emily Kelchen.