38-page opinion - Election Law Blog

Case 6:12-cv-00012-CCL Document 168 Filed 10/10/12 Page 24 of 38
Mont. Right to Life Assn. v. Eddleman, CV 96-165-BLG-JDS (D. Mont. Sept. 19,
2000) (Ex. 11). The Court upheld the limits, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed that
decision in 2003. See Mont. Right to Life Assn., 343 F. 3d 1085.
In affirming the district court, the Ninth Circuit relied on both Buckley and
Shrink Missouri and concluded that the contribution limits are closely drawn.
Mont. Right to Life Assn., 343 F.3d at 1094. It held that the evidence showed that
the limits do not prevent candidates in Montana from raising the funds necessary
to mount effective campaigns. Id. at 1094-95. That decision is not binding on this
Court because the U.S. Supreme Court's intervening decision in Randall compels
a different outcome. See Kilgore v. KeyBank. Nat. Assn., 673 F.3d 947, 959 (9th
Cir.2012).
IV. Randall II. Sorrell, 548 U.S. 230 (2006)
In Randall, which was decided after the Ninth Circuit's decision in
Montana Right to Life Assn., the U.S. Supreme Court examined Vermont's
contribution limits and held, for the first time, that a contribution limit violated the
First Amendment by failing the closely-drawn scrutiny standard ofreview. 548
U.S. 230; see Thalheimer, 343 F.3d at 1127 (discussing Randall, 548 U.S. 230).
Prior to Randall, Vermont limited single, individual contributions to a
campaign during a two-year general election cycle as follows: governor, lieutenant
governor, and other statewide offices, $400; state senator, $300; and state
24