The Supreme Court is expected to rule soon, in McCutcheon v. FEC, on whether the Federal Election Campaign Act’s biennial aggregate limits on individual political contributions are constitutionality permissible.  Many have argued that, if the Supreme Court strikes down the federal limits, aggregate limits imposed by state law will likewise be tossed aside.  That may well be true, but don’t expect it to happen overnight.

According to the National Institute on Money in State Politics, eight states currently limit the total contributions individuals may make to state or local candidates, parties, and/or state political committees: Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.  Some of these limits are quite low.  Maryland, for example, caps total contributions to all candidates per four-year election cycle at $10,000.  While the logic of the Court’s McCutcheon decision might make those state aggregate limits hard to defend, that will probably not stop some states from threatening to enforce these laws.  After the Supreme Court issued its Citizens United decision in January 2010, some states continued to take the position that state laws prohibiting corporate independent expenditures, or limiting contributions to state Super PACs, were enforceable.  Montana even defended its ban on corporate independent expenditures all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court which, in June 2012, issued a short per curiam decision striking down the law.  Indeed, four years after Citizens United, some state rules limiting contributions to state Super PACs remain in effect.  In New York, for example, the New York Attorney General has continued to mount a tenuous defense to the state’s cap on contributions to independent expenditure-only committees, even after the Second Circuit concluded that enforcement of those rules, as applied to one mayoral Super PAC, was likely unconstitutional.

In the post-Citizens United context, the biggest obstacle to overturning these state restrictions on independent expenditures is not the substantive legal theory.  Rather, these laws tend to remain on the books because few individuals with standing are willing to incur the expense and public scrutiny associated with challenging them.  We expect a similar dynamic will play out with respect to challenges to state aggregate contribution limits.  Given that history, it may be years before all state aggregate contributions fall away, if they ever do.

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Zachary G. Parks Zachary G. Parks

Zachary Parks advises corporations, trade associations, campaigns, and high-net worth individuals on their most important and challenging political law problems.

Chambers USA describes Zachary as “highly regarded by his clients in the political law arena,” noting that clients praised him as their “go-to outside…

Zachary Parks advises corporations, trade associations, campaigns, and high-net worth individuals on their most important and challenging political law problems.

Chambers USA describes Zachary as “highly regarded by his clients in the political law arena,” noting that clients praised him as their “go-to outside attorney for election law, campaign finance, pay-to-play and PAC issues.” Zachary is also a leading lawyer in the emerging corporate political disclosure field, regularly advising corporations on these issues.

Zachary’s expertise includes the Federal Election Campaign Act, the Lobbying Disclosure Act, the Ethics in Government Act, the Foreign Agents Registration Act, and the Securities and Exchange Commission’s pay-to-play rules. He has also helped clients comply with the election and political laws of all 50 states. Zachary also frequently leads political law due diligence for investment firms and corporations during mergers and acquisitions.

He routinely advises corporations and corporate executives on instituting political law compliance programs and conducts compliance training for senior corporate executives and lobbyists. He also has extensive experience conducting corporate internal investigations concerning campaign finance and lobbying law compliance and has defended his political law clients in investigations by the Federal Election Commission, the U.S. Department of Justice, Congressional committees, and in litigation.

Zachary is also the founder and chair of the J. Reuben Clark Law Society’s Political and Election Law Section.

Zachary also has extensive complex litigation experience, having litigated major environmental claims, class actions, and multi-district proceedings for financial institutions, corporations, and public entities.

From 2005 to 2006, Zachary was a law clerk for Judge Thomas B. Griffith on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.