Challenge To Campaign Contribution Limits Nixed
From the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin
A federal judge Monday threw out most of the challenges to limits Illinois law places on contributions to political candidates.
In a written opinion, U.S. District Judge Gary Feinerman rejected the argument that exempting political parties from the restrictions imposed on other donors violates the First Amendment and the equal protection clause.
Feinerman wrote that he was sticking to the conclusion he reached earlier when declining to enjoin certain provisions of the Illinois Disclosure and Regulation of Campaign Contributions and Expenditures Act.
In denying the request for a preliminary injunction, Feinerman had written that those challenging the provisions were unlikely to prevail because differences between political parties and interest groups justified differences in the contribution limits placed on them.
In his current ruling, Feinerman also rejected the argument that the limits the statute places on contributions fail to advance an important government interest.
“Supreme Court precedent conclusively establishes that appropriate limitations on campaign contributions advance the government’s interest in preventing quid pro quo corruption or the appearance thereof,” he wrote, citing cases that included Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, and Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC (2000).
Feinerman, however, wrote that he would allow the plaintiffs to proceed with a claim that the statute is unconstitutional because it classifies legislative caucus committees as political parties and therefore treats them more favorably than other donors.
Read more in our daily News Update...
From the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin
A federal judge Monday threw out most of the challenges to limits Illinois law places on contributions to political candidates.
In a written opinion, U.S. District Judge Gary Feinerman rejected the argument that exempting political parties from the restrictions imposed on other donors violates the First Amendment and the equal protection clause.
Feinerman wrote that he was sticking to the conclusion he reached earlier when declining to enjoin certain provisions of the Illinois Disclosure and Regulation of Campaign Contributions and Expenditures Act.
In denying the request for a preliminary injunction, Feinerman had written that those challenging the provisions were unlikely to prevail because differences between political parties and interest groups justified differences in the contribution limits placed on them.
In his current ruling, Feinerman also rejected the argument that the limits the statute places on contributions fail to advance an important government interest.
“Supreme Court precedent conclusively establishes that appropriate limitations on campaign contributions advance the government’s interest in preventing quid pro quo corruption or the appearance thereof,” he wrote, citing cases that included Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, and Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC (2000).
Feinerman, however, wrote that he would allow the plaintiffs to proceed with a claim that the statute is unconstitutional because it classifies legislative caucus committees as political parties and therefore treats them more favorably than other donors.
Read more in our daily News Update...