Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Green Party v Garfield 2

Green Party v Garfield 2

Ratings: (0)|Views: 40|Likes:
Published by Republican-American
U.S. 2nd District Court of Appeals finds Connecticut’s Campaign Finance Reform Act violates the First Amendment right to free speech by banning lobbyists from making campaign contributions and banning contractors and lobbyists from soliciting contributions on behalf of candidates for state office.
U.S. 2nd District Court of Appeals finds Connecticut’s Campaign Finance Reform Act violates the First Amendment right to free speech by banning lobbyists from making campaign contributions and banning contractors and lobbyists from soliciting contributions on behalf of candidates for state office.

More info:

Published by: Republican-American on Jul 14, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

11/20/2012

pdf

text

original

 
109-0599-cv(L), 09-0609-cv(CON)Green Party of Connecticut v. Garfield
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
 August Term 2009(Argued January 13, 2010 Decided July 13, 2010)Docket Nos. 09-0599-cv(L), 09-0609-cv(CON)G
REEN
P
 ARTY OF
C
ONNECTICUT
,
 
S.
 
M
ICHAEL
D
EROSA
,
 
L
IBERTARIAN
P
 ARTY OF
C
ONNECTICUT
,E
LIZABETH
G
 ALLO
,
 
 J
OANNE
P.
 
P
HILIPS
,
 
 A
NN
C.
 
OBINSON
,
 
OGER 
C.
 
 V 
 ANN
,
 
 A
SSOCIATION OF
CTL
OBBYISTS
,
 
and B
 ARRY 
 W 
ILLIAMS
,
 
Plaintiffs-Appellants 
, v. J
EFFREY 
G
 ARFIELD
,
 
ICHARD
B
LUMENTHAL
,
 
P
 ATRICIA
H
ENDEL
,
 
OBERT
N.
 
 W 
ORGAFTIK 
,
 
 J
 ACLYN
B
ERNSTEIN
,
 
EBECCA
M.
 
D
OT
,
 
E
NID
 J
OHNS
O
RESMAN
,
 
D
ENNIS
ILEY 
,
 
M
ICHAEL
ION
,
 
S
COTT
 A.
 
S
 TORMS
,
 
S
ISTER 
S
 ALLY 
 J.
 
 T
OLLES
,
 
and B
ENJAMIN
B
 YCEL
 ,Defendants-Appellees 
, A
UDREY 
B
LONDIN
,
 
 T
OM
S
EVIGNY 
,
 
C
OMMON
C
 AUSE OF
CT,
 
and
 
C
ONNECTICUT
C
ITIZEN
 A
CTION
G
ROUP
,
Intervenor-Defendants-Appellants 
.Before K 
EARSE
,
 
C
 ABRANES
,
 
and
 
H
 ALL
,
 
Circuit Judges 
. Appeal from a February 11, 2009 partial final judgment of the United States District Courtfor the District of Connecticut (Stefan R. Underhill,
 Judge 
 ) entered after the Court granted summary judgment to defendants, upholding several provisions of Connecticut’s Campaign Finance Reform Act (CFRA) against a First Amendment challenge. We affirm the judgment of the District Court insofar as it upheld certain provisions banning state contractors and associated individuals from making campaign contributions to candidates forstate office.
 
2 We reverse the judgment of the District Court insofar as it upheld certain provisions(a) banning lobbyists from making campaign contributions and (b) banning contractors andlobbyists from soliciting contributions on behalf of candidates for state office. We hold that thoseprovisions violate the First Amendment.In a judgment entered September 2, 2009, the District Court disposed of additional claimschallenging Connecticut’s Citizen Election Program, a part of the CFRA that provides public fundsto candidates running for state office. We address an appeal of the September 2, 2009 judgment in aseparately filed opinion.R.
 
B
 ARTLEY 
H
 ALLORAN
,
 
Farmington, Connecticut,
 for  plaintiffs-appellants Association of CT Lobbyists and Barry Williams 
.M
 ARK 
 J.
 
L
OPEZ
, Lewis, Clifton & Nikolaidis, P.C., New  York, New York (Benjamin Sahl, American Civil LibertiesUnion Foundation, New York, New York and David J.McGuire, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation,Hartford, Connecticut,
on the brief 
 ),
 for the remaining plaintiffs- appellants 
.I
RA
M.
 
F
EINBERG
, Hogan & Hartson LLP, New York, New  York (Richard Blumenthal, Attorney General, Perry ZinnRowthorn and Maura Murphy Osborne, Assistant AttorneysGeneral, Office of the Attorney General of the State of Connecticut, Hartford, Connecticut; Monica Y. Youn and Angela Migally, Brennan Center for Justice, NYU School of Law, New York, New York; and David Dunn, Hogan &Hartson LLP, New York, New York,
on the brief 
 ),
 for defendants- appellees and intervenor-defendants-appellees.
 Justin R. Clark and Peter J. Martin, Pepe & Hazard LLP,Hartford, Connecticut,
 for amicus curiae the Republican Party of Connecituct in support of plaintiffs-appellants 
.
 J
OSÉ
 A.
 
C
 ABRANES
,
 
Circuit Judge 
: This is the second of two opinions in which we consider a constitutional challenge to certainprovisions of Connecticut’s Campaign Finance Reform Act (CFRA).
 
We use the term “principal” in this opinion to mean those individuals and entities defined
1
in Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9-612(g)(1)(F)(i)-(iv), (vi). Although it is included in the statutory definition, we do not use the term “principal” to mean the “spouse” or “dependent child” of a contractor.
See id.
§ 9-612(g)(1)(F)(v). We analyze the CFRA’s effect on a contractors’ spouses and dependentchildren separately from the statute’s effect on “principals.” The opinion will refer to the “spouses”or the “dependent children” of contractors by using those terms or by using the term “families.”3 As we describe in our first opinion, the CFRA was enacted in 2005 as a comprehensiveeffort to bring about campaign finance reform in Connecticut. In our first opinion, which we fileseparately, we consider a challenge to the Citizens Election Program (CEP), a part of the CFRA thatprovides public funds to candidates running for state office.
See 
 
Green Party of Conn. v. Garfield 
, No.09-3760-cv(L), __ F.3d __ (2d Cir. July 13, 2010). We consider here a challenge to provisions of theCFRA that ban campaign contributions and the solicitation of campaign contributions by statecontractors, lobbyists, and their families.Following cross-motions for summary judgment, the United States District Court for theDistrict of Connecticut (Stefan R. Underhill,
 Judge 
 ) determined that each of the challengedprovisions was consistent with the First Amendment.
See Green Party of Conn. v. Garfield 
, 590 F. Supp.2d 288 (D. Conn. 2008) (“
Green Party I 
”). We affirm part of that decision, as we hold that the CFRAcomports with the First Amendment insofar as it bans contributions by state contractors,“prospective” state contractors, the “principals” of contractors and prospective state contractors,
1
and the spouses and dependent children of those individuals. We also reverse part of the District Court’s decision, as we hold that the CFRA violates theFirst Amendment insofar as it bans contributions by lobbyists and their families and insofar as itprohibits contractors, lobbyists, and their families from soliciting contributions on behalf of candidates.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->