PRESS RELEASE
October 3, 2024
Contact: James Bopp, Jr.
Cell Phone 812/243-0825; Phone 812/232-2434; Fax 812/235-3685; [email protected]
Victory for Indiana Right to Life as Court Bars Enforcement of Laws Prohibiting Corporate Contributions to Super PACs
TERRE HAUTE - On Tuesday, a federal court prohibited enforcement of an Indiana law that, in violation of the First Amendment, limited corporate contributions to PACs for independent expenditures. This ruling represents a complete victory for Indiana Right to Life Victory Fund (“IRTL Victory Fund”) and for all who value the constitutional right to engage in political speech, which is at the core of the First Amendment.
IRTL Victory Fund, an Indiana state PAC, makes only independent expenditures only, in races for Indiana state and local offices. Thus, it is an “independent expenditure-only PAC” (such PACs are also called “Super PACs”). Its expenditures are not coordinated with any candidate and it does not give money to the candidates. Together with Sarkes Tarzian, Inc., a corporation wishing to donate to it, IRTL Victory Fund had argued that Indiana's election law violates the First Amendment by limiting corporate contributions to PACs for independent expenditures.
Originally, the federal trial court had erroneously denied IRTL Victory Fund the relief it sought. However, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago reversed. After the Indiana Supreme Court ruled that Indiana state law does indeed limit corporate contributions to independent expenditure- only state PACS, as IRTL Victory Fund thought, the 7th Circuit struck down the law, holding that the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly said that only contributions that pose a threat of “quid-pro-quo corruption” (that is, the exchange of money for political favors) could be limited and that contributions for independent expenditures do not create such a threat.
As a result of these Supreme Court rulings, limits on corporate contributions for independent expenditures, like those at issue here, are unconstitutional. The 7th Circuit additionally rejected Indiana's argument that IRTL Victory Fund should simply take the word of state election officials that Indiana would not attempt to enforce the laws that way, noting that these bureaucratic promises of non-enforcement could not be relied upon. As a result, the 7th Circuit required the trial court to bar enforcement of the laws.
In addition, while the 7th Circuit only explicitly required a temporary ban, the court's decision said IRTL Victory Fund would prevail on the merits, so all parties agreed that the ban should be made permanent.
James Bopp, Jr. of The Bopp Law Firm, PC, lead counsel for IRTL Victory Fund, said, “We are pleased that this extended litigation has ultimately led to the court's recognition of an obvious fact: the First Amendment does not cease to exist when Americans opt to voice their political beliefs through a PAC or when corporations independently voice their opinions on political issues. It is critical for the people of Indiana to have certainty that their rights will not be wrested away by government bureaucrats who are allowed to make non-enforcement promises that they aren't required to keep. The 7th Circuit correctly refused to allow this case to disappear based on such empty promises, but instead required the court to protect these right by striking down unconstitutional laws.”
Read the order here.
Comments
There are no comments for this post. Be the first and Add your Comment below.
Leave a Comment