Judge Strikes Parts of Missouri Campaign Finance Law

[Peter1469]

Judge Strikes Parts of Missouri Campaign Finance Law

A federal judge overturned portions of Missouri's campaign finance law to include bans on heavily regulated industries contributing to PACs.

The lawsuit was in response to an amendment of Article VIII of the Missouri Constitution that added Section 23. On Nov. 8, 70 percent of Missouri voters approved Initiative Petition 2016-007 that added Section 23, changing multiple campaign finance regulations.

The amendment limited individual campaign contributions to candidates to $2,600 per election, prohibited candidate committees from contributing to another candidate committee, and prevented certain corporations and unions from contributing to campaign committees, except contributions made through an established “continuing committee.”


On Friday, Senior U.S. District Judge Ortrie Smith ruled that the $2,600 limit can stay in place, but the other regulations must go.


Smith found the ban on contributions made to Missouri political action committees, or PACs, by foreign businesses not authorized to do business in Missouri to be unconstitutional, as well as a prohibition on contributions from “heavily regulated industries.”

Citizen's United was too broad in its ruling. I get allowing closely held corporations to contribute to political campaigns, but publically traded- not so much. Each individual associated with this corporations can donate in their personal capacity. And the corporation can lobby Congress- where it gets much more bang for its buck.

Read the rest at the link.

[MisterVeritis]

Judge Strikes Parts of Missouri Campaign Finance Law

A federal judge overturned portions of Missouri's campaign finance law to include bans on heavily regulated industries contributing to PACs.



Citizen's United was too broad in its ruling. I get allowing closely held corporations to contribute to political campaigns, but publically traded- not so much. Each individual associated with this corporations can donate in their personal capacity. And the corporation can lobby Congress- where it gets much more bang for its buck.

Read the rest at the link.

Is it possible you do not understand the CU ruling?

[Peter1469]

Is it possible you do not understand the CU ruling?

Anything is possible. But I understand SCOTUS decisions- it is part of my job.

[Newpublius]

Anything is possible. But I understand SCOTUS decisions- it is part of my job.

Well the first thing to note is that there is a distinction between direct contributions and independent expenditures. Citizens United dealt with the latter.

Secondly Citizens United itself wasn't and still isn't a publicly traded corporation at all but indeed the caae states it wouldn't matter who the speaker was.

Would it matter if Bill Maher worked for an HBO that was closely held or publicly held?

[Peter1469]

Well the first thing to note is that there is a distinction between direct contributions and independent expenditures. Citizens United dealt with the latter.

Secondly Citizens United itself wasn't and still isn't a publicly traded corporation at all but indeed the caae states it wouldn't matter who the speaker was.

Would it matter if Bill Maher worked for an HBO that was closely held or publicly held?

Regarding your second point- yes I agree that is what the Court said. I mentioned that I disagree with that.

Bill Maher is free to donate up to the legal limits. Citizen's United was about corporate donations.

[Archer0915]

Judge Strikes Parts of Missouri Campaign Finance Law

A federal judge overturned portions of Missouri's campaign finance law to include bans on heavily regulated industries contributing to PACs.



Citizen's United was too broad in its ruling. I get allowing closely held corporations to contribute to political campaigns, but publically traded- not so much. Each individual associated with this corporations can donate in their personal capacity. And the corporation can lobby Congress- where it gets much more bang for its buck.

Read the rest at the link.

Smith found the ban on contributions made to Missouri political action committees, or PACs, by foreign businesses not authorized to do business in Missouri to be unconstitutional,

I take issue with this. It means it is okay for Russia to interfere in elections.

[Newpublius]

Citizen's United was about corporate donations.

No, it wasn't. It was about independent expenditures. Citizens United spent money to create a movie that criticized a seated US Senator.

HBO is part of the publicly traded Time Warner which spends money to put on Real Time where Bill Maher obviously opines on things generally and when elections are imminent that will naturally include candidates for office, or obviously seated officials.

[Newpublius]

Smith found the ban on contributions made to Missouri political action committees, or PACs, by foreign businesses not authorized to do business in Missouri to be unconstitutional,

I take issue with this. It means it is okay for Russia to interfere in elections.

Just an aside here, when normal people think of foreign they think 'not within the US' but just a little piece of trivia, when a business files to do business in another state, its actually called a 'foreign qualification' -- weird? Yes, but that's really what its called and without looking into it further, they actually mean 'out of state'

https://www.bizfilings.com/toolkit/r...-qualification

[Archer0915]

Just an aside here, when normal people think of foreign they think 'not within the US' but just a little piece of trivia, when a business files to do business in another state, its actually called a 'foreign qualification' -- weird? Yes, but that's really what its called and without looking into it further, they actually mean 'out of state'

https://www.bizfilings.com/toolkit/r...-qualification

The judge better qualify that. Do we know what context it was used in here?

[Newpublius]

The judge better qualify that. Do we know what context it was used in here?

Yes, there is an opinion.

"Chapter 347 governs only limited liability companies (“LLC”).
Second, Plaintiffs challenge Section 23.3(12), which provides “[p]olitical action
committees shall only receive contributions from individuals; unions; federal political
action committees; and corporations, associations, and partnerships formed under
chapters 347 to 360, RSMo, as amended from time to time.” § 23.3(12). Chapters 347
through 360 govern corporations, associations, and partnerships."

So we can see that the MO law is set up that if you are not an entity formed by MO law, you'll be prohibited from contributing to the PAC.

The defendants quibble on that because another section of the law says that they won't discriminate based on origin, so they interpreted it to mean that as long as you registered to do business in MO, that would be ok.

§ 23.3(12) provides specific authorization for political action committees to
receive contributions from corporations, associations and partnerships
formed under those chapters, and § 23.3(16) appears to include a
prohibition for foreign corporations although referencing only one chapter
of the Missouri Revised Code. It is the Commission’s opinion that when
both sections are read together, and because the legislature has
expressly stated in those chapters listed in § 23.3(12) that foreign
corporations and other business entities shall have the same rights and
privileges as domestic corporations and business entities, political action
committees can receive contributions from foreign corporations,
associations or partnerships, holding valid certificates of authority to do
business in this state under chapters 347 to 360, RSMo.
Consistent with this analysis, the Commission interprets the prohibition on
contributions to foreign corporations in § 23.3(16)(c) not to extend to
foreign corporations that have registered to do business in the state under
Chapters 347 to 360, RSMo....

And then:

Chapters 347 through 360 provide a foreign corporation with a certificate of
authority to do business in Missouri has the same rights and privileges as an in-state
corporation. Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 351.582.2, 356.031, 358.500, 358.510, 347.157. HSI, a
for-profit corporation organized under Kansas laws, has a certificate of authority to
transact business in Missouri pursuant to chapter 351. AMEC Plaintiffs’ Amended
Complaint lists KAMO Power, an Oklahoma corporation authorized to do business in
Missouri pursuant to chapter 355, as a rural electric cooperative that has contributed to
AMEC-PAC in the past, and wishes to do so in the future. AMEC-PAC believes Section
23.3(16)(c) prohibits it from receiving KAMO Power’s contribution, but Advisory Opinion
No. 2017.02.CF.006 indicates such a contribution is lawful in the MEC’s view.