Ognibene Decision

Embed Doc
Copy Link
Readcast
Collections

CommentGo Back

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------xTOM OGNIBENE, YVETTE VELAZQUEZ BENNET,VIVIANA VAZQUEZ-HERNANDEZ, ROBERT PEREZ,FRAN REITER, SHEILA ANDERSEN-RICCI,MARTINA FRANCA ASSOCIATES, LLC,REITER/BEGUN ASSOCIATES, LLC,DENIS GITTENS, OSCAR PEREZ, THE KINGSCOUNTY COMMITTEE OF THE NEW YORK STATECONSERVATIVE PARTY, THE NEW YORK STATECONSERVATIVE PARTY, MARTIN DILAN, andMARLENE TAPPER,Plaintiffs,-v-No. 08 Civ. 1335 (LTS)(TDK)JOSEPH P. PARKES, S.J, in his official capacity asChairman of the New York City Campaign Finance Board,DALE C. CHRISTENSEN, JR., KATHERYN C. PATTERSON,and MARK S. PIAZZA, in their official capacity as members of New York City’s Campaign Finance Board, MARK DAVIES,in his official capacity as Executive Director of the New York CityConflicts of Interest Board, and MONICA BLUM,STEVEN ROSENFELD, ANDREW IRVING, andANGELA M. FREYRE, in their official capacity as membersof New York City’s Board of Conflicts of Interest, andMICHAEL MCSWEENY, in his official capacity asActing City Clerk of New York City,Defendants.-------------------------------------------------------x

O

PINION AND

O

RDER

APPEARANCES:DAVIDOFF, MALITO & HUTCHER, LLPBy: Charles Capetanakis605 Third Avenue34th Floor New York , NY 10158BOPP, COLESON & BOSTROMBy: James BoppJoseph Eugene La Rue1 South Sixth StreetTerre Haute , IN 47807

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

NYC LAW DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OFTHE CORPORATION COUNSELBy: Jonathan L. Pines100 Church Street New York , NY 10007

Attorney for Defendants

PROSKAUER ROSE LLPBy: John Hoover Snyder 1585 Broadway New York , NY 10036

Attorney for Amici Citizens Union, CommonCause/NY, and New York Public Interest Research Group

JENNER & BLOCK LLPBy: Paul March Smith1099 New York Avenue, N.W.Suite 900Washington , DC 20001-4412

Attorney for Amici Brad Lander and Mark Winston Griffith

LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, United States District Judge

The Plaintiffs in this action include New York City voters, aspiring candidates for

1

local office, a business owner, lobbyists and persons affiliated with lobbyists,limited liability companies, and political parties. Defendants challenge the standingof one of the Plaintiffs, Robert Perez, to challenge the “doing business” contributionlimits that are discussed infra. Because the lobbyist-plaintiffs clearly have standingto challenge the limitations in question, it is unnecessary for the Court to addressstanding as to Mr. Perez at this time.

O

GNIBENE

.

WPD

V

ERSION

2/6/093

Plaintiffs bring this action for declaratory and injunctive relief against Defendants

1

alleging that certain provisions of New York City’s political campaign finance and lobby lawsviolate the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States and theVoting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1973. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that certain recently-enactedamendments to the New York City Administrative Code (“Administrative Code”), commonlyknown as the “pay-to-play” rules, which reduce to levels below the generally-applicable campaigncontribution limits the amounts that lobbyists, and persons engaged in certain business dealingswith the City of New York, can contribute to political campaigns, ban contributions by certaintypes of entities, and deny matching contributions in connection with campaign contributions bylobbyists and certain persons associated with them. Plaintiffs assert that these aspects of the lawsunduly burden protected political speech and association in violation of the First Amendment anddeny equal protection of the laws in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, both facially and asapplied. The Court has jurisdiction of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343(a).Plaintiffs filed an original and an amended complaint in February 2008 and, in April2008, moved for a preliminary injunction on some, but not all, of the claims asserted in theamended complaint. In their motion for preliminary injunctive relief, Plaintiffs raised facialconstitutional challenges to the Administrative Code provisions that lower contribution limits anddisallow matching funds for contributions by individuals who have “business dealings with the

of 00

Leave a Comment