OUTCOME: Reversed and remanded by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in client's favor
After MFA formed a campaign committee less than 30 days before the November 4, 2014, election and violated Missouri law section 130.011(8), MFA filed suit against the executive director of the Missouri... Ethics Commission (MEC), in his official capacity, seeking to declare unconstitutional the 30-day formation deadline. The district court granted a temporary restraining order, but after the election, dismissed MFA’s suit as not ripe. The court concluded that MFA has Article III standing to challenge section 130.011(8) on First Amendment grounds where MFA’s self-censorship is objectively reasonable; although the 2014 election has passed, this case is not moot where MEC can at any time implement its policy and assess the fee for violation of the formation deadline in section 130.011(8) and, in the alternative, this action is not moot under the “capable of repetition yet evading review” exception to mootness; and MFA’s case is ripe for review where MFA asserts the harm of self-censorship, based on its compliance with section 130.011(8). Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Constitutional
Texans for Free Enterprise v. Texas Ethics Commission
Oct 16, 2013
OUTCOME: Affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in client's favor
On October 16, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a published opinion in Texans for Free Enterprise v. Texas Ethics Commission that vindicates the political speech and associa...tion rights of corporations and political committees. The decision upheld the right of individuals and corporations to make unlimited contributions to a committee making independent expenditures only, which should permanently clear the way for so-called “super PACs” to influence state and local political races in Texas.
Following the Citizens United decision, the Texas Legislature amended the state election code to repeal all sections of the code prohibiting a single corporation from making direct campaign expenditures (more commonly known as “independent expenditures” under federal law). The Legislature did not, however, repeal or amend code provisions that prohibit corporations from contributing to political action committees (i.e., super PACs) for the same purpose. Although not widely recognized, these laws continued to make it illegal for super PACs to influence state and local races in Texas.
Texans for Free Enterprise, a Texas-based political committee formed for the purpose of making direct campaign expenditures only, sued the Texas Ethics Commission alleging the prohibitions unconstitutionally infringed its First Amendment rights. Shortly after the 2012 general election, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas issued a preliminary injunction enjoining the State of Texas from enforcing the Texas Election Code laws that prohibited Texans for Free Enterprise from accepting corporate contributions for the purpose of making direct campaign expenditures. The Fifth Circuit’s opinion unanimously affirmed that lower court’s decision.
Constitutional
Texans for Free Enterprise v. Texas Ethics Commission
Dec 07, 2012
OUTCOME: Preliminary injunction granted by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas in client's favor
A federal judge has ruled in favor of a Texas-based political action committee (PAC) by granting a preliminary injunction in a First Amendment lawsuit that may permanently clear the way for so-called "...super PACs" to influence state and local political races in Texas.
In September, the PAC Texans for Free Enterprise sued the Texas Ethics Commission challenging the constitutionality of the Texas Election Code provisions that prohibit PACs from accepting corporate contributions for the purpose of making direct campaign expenditures. The Texas Ethics Commission defines direct campaign expenditures as independent expenditures made without the prior consent, approval or cooperation of the candidate benefited.
The lawsuit cites the U.S. Supreme Court's 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which held that corporations and unions can raise and spend an unlimited amount of money to campaign independently for candidates running for office. The Citizens United ruling and other court decisions that followed resulted in a new breed of political committees known as super PACs, which can legally raise and spend corporate money to influence elections for federal offices.
Following the Citizens United decision, the Texas Legislature amended the state election code to repeal all sections of the code prohibiting a single corporation from making direct campaign expenditures. The Legislature did not, however, repeal or amend code provisions that prohibit corporations from contributing to political action committees (i.e., super PACs) for the same purpose, which made it illegal for super PACs to influence state and local races in Texas.
The ruling from Judge Lee Yeakel of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas in Austin prevents the Texas Ethics Commission from enforcing the contribution restrictions in Sections 253.003(b) and 253.094(a) of the Texas Election Code against Texans for Free Enterprise until the conclusion of the lawsuit. Notably, Judge Yeakel held that Texans for Free Enterprise has already established a likelihood of success on the merits of its claims.
Texans for Free Enterprise is represented by attorney Chris Gober of Gober Hilgers PLLC and Lewis Sessions of Sessions & Schaffer, P.C. Copies of the complaint in Texans for Free Enterprise v. Texas Ethics Commission, No. 1:12-cv-00845-LY; the motion for preliminary injunction; and Judge Yeakel's opinion can be viewed at http://goberhilgers.com/writing.
Election campaigns and political law
Perez et al v. Perry et al
N/A
OUTCOME:
Chris represented former Congressman Quico Canseco (TX-23) in Texas redistricting litigation before the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texa
