Green Party of Connecticut v. Garfield

09-0599-cv(L), 09-0609-cv(CON)
Green Party of Connecticut v. Garfield

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

August Term 2009

(Argued January 13, 2010 Decided July 13, 2010)

Docket Nos. 09-0599-cv(L), 09-0609-cv(CON)

GREEN PARTY OF CONNECTICUT, S. MICHAEL DEROSA, LIBERTARIAN PARTY OF CONNECTICUT,
ELIZABETH GALLO , JOANNE P. PHILIPS, ANN C. ROBINSON , ROGER C. VANN , ASSOCIATION OF CT
LOBBYISTS, and BARRY WILLIAMS,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

JEFFREY GARFIELD, RICHARD BLUMENTHAL , PATRICIA HENDEL, ROBERT N. WORGAFTIK , JACLYN
BERNSTEIN , REBECCA M. DOTY , ENID JOHNS ORESMAN , DENNIS RILEY, MICHAEL RION , SCOTT
A. STORMS, SISTER SALLY J. TOLLES, and BENJAMIN BYCEL,

Defendants-Appellees,

AUDREY BLONDIN , TOM SEVIGNY, COMMON CAUSE OF CT, and CONNECTICUT CITIZEN ACTION
GROUP,

Intervenor-Defendants-Appellants.

Before KEARSE , CABRANES, and HALL, Circuit Judges.

Appeal from a February 11, 2009 partial final judgment of the United States District Court

for the District of Connecticut (Stefan R. Underhill, Judge) entered after the Court granted summary

judgment to defendants, upholding several provisions of Connecticut’s Campaign Finance Reform

Act (CFRA) against a First Amendment challenge.

We affirm the judgment of the District Court insofar as it upheld certain provisions banning

state contractors and associated individuals from making campaign contributions to candidates for

state office.

1
 We reverse the judgment of the District Court insofar as it upheld certain provisions

(a) banning lobbyists from making campaign contributions and (b) banning contractors and

lobbyists from soliciting contributions on behalf of candidates for state office. We hold that those

provisions violate the First Amendment.

In a judgment entered September 2, 2009, the District Court disposed of additional claims

challenging Connecticut’s Citizen Election Program, a part of the CFRA that provides public funds

to candidates running for state office. We address an appeal of the September 2, 2009 judgment in a

separately filed opinion.

R. BARTLEY HALLORAN , Farmington, Connecticut, for
plaintiffs-appellants Association of CT Lobbyists and Barry Williams.

MARK J. LOPEZ, Lewis, Clifton & Nikolaidis, P.C., New
York, New York (Benjamin Sahl, American Civil Liberties
Union Foundation, New York, New York and David J.
McGuire, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation,
Hartford, Connecticut, on the brief), for the remaining plaintiffs-
appellants.

IRA M. FEINBERG , Hogan & Hartson LLP, New York, New
York (Richard Blumenthal, Attorney General, Perry Zinn
Rowthorn and Maura Murphy Osborne, Assistant Attorneys
General, Office of the Attorney General of the State of
Connecticut, Hartford, Connecticut; Monica Y. Youn and
Angela Migally, Brennan Center for Justice, NYU School of
Law, New York, New York; and David Dunn, Hogan &
Hartson LLP, New York, New York, on the brief), for defendants-
appellees and intervenor-defendants-appellees.

Justin R. Clark and Peter J. Martin, Pepe & Hazard LLP,
Hartford, Connecticut, for amicus curiae the Republican Party of
Connecituct in support of plaintiffs-appellants.

JOSÉ A. CABRANES, Circuit Judge:

This is the second of two opinions in which we consider a constitutional challenge to certain

provisions of Connecticut’s Campaign Finance Reform Act (CFRA).

2
 As we describe in our first opinion, the CFRA was enacted in 2005 as a comprehensive

effort to bring about campaign finance reform in Connecticut. In our first opinion, which we file

separately, we consider a challenge to the Citizens Election Program (CEP), a part of the CFRA that

provides public funds to candidates running for state office. See Green Party of Conn. v. Garfield, No.

09-3760-cv(L), __ F.3d __ (2d Cir. July 13, 2010). We consider here a challenge to provisions of the

CFRA that ban campaign contributions and the solicitation of campaign contributions by state

contractors, lobbyists, and their families.

Following cross-motions for summary judgment, the United States District Court for the

District of Connecticut (Stefan R. Underhill, Judge) determined that each of the challenged

provisions was consistent with the First Amendment. See Green Party of Conn. v. Garfield, 590 F. Supp.

2d 288 (D. Conn. 2008) (“Green Party I”). We affirm part of that decision, as we hold that the CFRA

comports with the First Amendment insofar as it bans contributions by state contractors,

“prospective” state contractors, the “principals” of contractors and prospective state contractors,1

and the spouses and dependent children of those individuals.

We also reverse part of the District Court’s decision, as we hold that the CFRA violates the

First Amendment insofar as it bans contributions by lobbyists and their families and insofar as it

prohibits contractors, lobbyists, and their families from soliciting contributions on behalf of

candidates.

1
We use the term “principal” in this opinion to mean those individuals and entities defined
in Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9-612(g)(1)(F)(i)-(iv), (vi). Although it is included in the statutory definition,
we do not use the term “principal” to mean the “spouse” or “dependent child” of a contractor. See
id. § 9-612(g)(1)(F)(v). We analyze the CFRA’s effect on a contractors’ spouses and dependent
children separately from the statute’s effect on “principals.” The opinion will refer to the “spouses”
or the “dependent children” of contractors by using those terms or by using the term “families.”

3
 BACKGROUND

We first describe the history of the CFRA. We then outline the challenged provisions and

briefly recount the procedural history of this action.

I. The History of the CFRA

In our first opinion addressing the CFRA, we summarized the history of the statute:

The CFRA . . . was passed in response to several corruption scandals
in Connecticut. [See Green Party of Conn. v. Garfield, 648 F. Supp. 2d 298, 306-
07 (D. Conn. 2009) (“Green Party II”).] The most widely publicized of the
scandals involved Connecticut’s former governor, John Rowland. In 2004,
Rowland was accused of accepting over $100,000 worth of gifts and services
from state contractors, including vacations, flights on a private jet, and
renovations to his lake cottage. Rowland accepted the gifts, it was alleged, in
exchange for assisting the contractors in securing lucrative state contracts.
Rowland resigned amidst the allegations, and in 2005 pleaded guilty—along
with two aides and several contractors—to federal charges in connection
with the scandal. Rowland was fined and sentenced to a year and a day in
federal prison. See id. at 307.

Sadly, the ignominy of public corruption was not limited to Rowland.
As the District Court discussed in detail, the “Rowland scandal was but one
of the many corruption scandals involving elected officials in state and local
government that helped earn the state the nickname ‘Corrupticut.’” See id. at
307-08 (cataloging the scandals); see also id. at 307 & n.9 (discussing the
decline of the reputation of Connecticut’s state government).

It was in the wake of those scandals that Connecticut lawmakers
resolved to enact “expansive campaign finance reforms.” Id. at 309. In the
summer of 2005, Governor M. Jodi Rell established the Campaign Finance
Reform Working Group (the “Working Group”), a collection of six state
representatives and six state senators who were charged with drafting a new
campaign finance reform law. After holding televised hearings for three
months, the Working Group proposed an expansive bill, much of which
would be incorporated into the final version of the CFRA. See id. at 309-10.

In the fall of 2005, Governor Rell called a special session of the
General Assembly for the sole purpose of considering the Working Group’s
proposed bill. After a month of debate, the General Assembly passed the
CFRA, and Governor Rell signed it into law. See id. at 310-11. As the
District Court set forth in detail, several contemporaneous statements from
General Assembly members, as well as Governor Rell, explain that the CFRA

4
 was passed “to combat actual and perceived corruption in state government.”
Id. at 311.

Green Party, No. 09-3760-cv(L), at __ , __ F.3d at __ .

II. The Challenged Provisions

The CFRA is a broad-ranging and complex statute, and plaintiffs challenge only parts of the

law. Put succinctly, the challenged provisions of the CFRA prohibit state contractors and certain

lobbyists from (1) making campaign contributions to candidates for state office and (2) soliciting

campaign contributions on behalf of candidates for state office. Violations of those prohibitions are

punishable by civil penalties and criminal sanctions. See Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 9-610(j), 9-622(8),

9-622(10), 9-623(a).

A. Contribution Bans

First, the CFRA prohibits state contractors and lobbyists from making campaign

contributions to candidates for state office. See Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 9-610(g), 9-612(g)(2)(A)-(B).

The CFRA’s ban on contractor contributions applies to any “person, business entity or

nonprofit organization that enters into a state contract.” Id. § 9-612(g)(1)(D). It also applies to any

“prospective” contractor; to any “principal” of a contractor or prospective contractor; and to the

“spouse” or “dependent child”2 of a contractor, a prospective contractor, or a principal of a

contractor or prospective contractor. Id. § 9-612(g)(2). (We discuss these terms in detail below.)

In addition, the ban on contractor contributions is what might be called “branch specific.”

If the contract in question is “with or from a state agency in the executive branch,” the contractor

may contribute to a candidate for the General Assembly but not to a candidate for an executive

office (i.e., a candidate for “Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, State Comptroller,

2
The prohibition on contributions by dependent children applies only to “a dependent child
who is eighteen years of age or older.” Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9-612(g)(1)(F)(v).

5
Secretary of the State or State Treasurer”). Id. § 9-612(g)(2)(A). If the contract in question is “with

or from the General Assembly,” the contractor may contribute to a candidate for an executive office

but not to a candidate for the General Assembly. Id. § 9-612(g)(2)(B).3 Nonetheless, any “holder, or

principal of a holder of a valid prequalification certificate,” such a certification being required in

order to bid or perform work on certain high-cost, state-funded projects, is precluded from

contributing to candidates for either branch of government. Id. §§ 9-612(g)(2)(A)-(B). Further, all

individuals and entities covered by the contractor ban are prohibited from contributing to any state

or town “[p]arty committee.” Id. § 9-601(1)-(2).

3
The ban on contractor contributions reads in full:

(A) No state contractor, prospective state contractor, principal of a state
contractor or principal of a prospective state contractor, with regard to a
state contract or a state contract solicitation with or from a state agency in
the executive branch or a quasi-public agency or a holder, or principal of a
holder of a valid prequalification certificate, shall make a contribution to, or
solicit contributions on behalf of (i) an exploratory committee or candidate
committee established by a candidate for nomination or election to the office
of Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, State Comptroller,
Secretary of the State or State Treasurer, (ii) a political committee authorized
to make contributions or expenditures to or for the benefit of such
candidates, or (iii) a party committee[.]

(B) No state contractor, prospective state contractor, principal of a state
contractor or principal of a prospective state contractor, with regard to a
state contract or a state contract solicitation with or from the General
Assembly or a holder, or principal of a holder, of a valid prequalification
certificate, shall make a contribution to, or solicit contributions on behalf of
(i) an exploratory committee or candidate committee established by a
candidate for nomination or election to the office of state senator or state
representative, (ii) a political committee authorized to make contributions or
expenditures to or for the benefit of such candidates, or (iii) a party
committee[.]

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9-612(g)(2).

6
 The CFRA’s ban on lobbyist contributions applies to any “communicator lobbyist,” defined

(a) as “someone compensated for lobbying over the threshold amount of $ 2,000 in any calendar

year,” Green Party I, 590 F. Supp. 2d at 295 n.3 (quoting State Elections Enforcement Commission

(SEEC) Declaratory Ruling 2006-1, at 2), and (b) as “a lobbyist who communicates directly or

solicits others to communicate with an official or his staff in the legislative or executive branch of

government or in a quasi-public agency for the purpose of influencing legislative or administrative

action,” Conn. Gen. Stat. § 1-91(v). The ban on lobbyist contributions also applies to the “spouse”

or “dependent child” of a communicator lobbyist. See id. § 9-610(g) (applying the ban to the

“immediate family” of a communicator lobbyist); id. § 9-601(24) (defining “[i]mmediate family” as

“the spouse or a dependent child of an individual”).4

B. Solicitation Bans

The CFRA also prohibits contractors and lobbyists from “solicit[ing]” campaign

contributions “on behalf of” candidates for state office. See Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 9-610(h),

9-612(g)(2)(A)-(B).

4
The ban on lobbyist contributions reads in full:

No communicator lobbyist, member of the immediate family of a
communicator lobbyist, or political committee established or controlled by a
communicator lobbyist or a member of the immediate family of a
communicator lobbyist shall make a contribution or contributions to, or for
the benefit of (1) an exploratory committee or a candidate committee
established by a candidate for nomination or election to the office of
Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, State Comptroller, State
Treasurer, Secretary of the State, state senator or state representative, (2) a
political committee established or controlled by any such candidate, (3) a
legislative caucus committee or a legislative leadership committee, or (4) a
party committee.

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9-610(g).

7
 Like the CFRA’s ban on contributions, the ban on the solicitation of contributions applies

not only to current state contractors, but also to any “prospective” contractor; to any “principal” of

a contractor or prospective contractor; and to the “spouse” or “dependent child” of a contractor, a

prospective contractor, or a principal of a contractor or prospective contractor. Id. § 9-612(g)(2).5

The solicitation ban also applies to any “communicator lobbyists” and to the “spouse” or

“dependent child” of such a lobbyist. Id. §§ 9-601(24), 9-610(h).6

The term “solicit” is defined by statute to include, among other things, “requesting that a

contribution be made,” “participating in any fund-raising activities for a candidate,” and “bundling

contributions” for a candidate. Id. § 9-601(26). Excluded from the statutory definition of “solicit”

is, among other things, “making a contribution that is otherwise permitted under this chapter” and

“informing any person of a position taken by a candidate.” Id.7

5
For the full version of the ban on the solicitation of contributions by contractors, see note
3, ante.
6
The ban on the solicitation of contributions by lobbyists reads in full:

No communicator lobbyist, immediate family member of a communicator
lobbyist, agent of a communicator lobbyist, or political committee
established or controlled by a communicator lobbyist or any such immediate
family member or agent shall solicit (1) a contribution on behalf of a
candidate committee or an exploratory committee established by a candidate
for the office of Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, State
Comptroller, State Treasurer, Secretary of the State, state senator or state
representative, a political committee established or controlled by any such
candidate, a legislative caucus committee, a legislative leadership committee
or a party committee, or (2) the purchase of advertising space in a program
for a fund-raising affair sponsored by a town committee, as described in
subparagraph (B) of subdivision (10) of section 9-601a.

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9-610(h).
7
The full statutory definition of “solicit” reads as follows:

“Solicit” means (A) requesting that a contribution be made, (B) participating

8
 The CFRA is administered and interpreted by a state agency known as the State Elections

Enforcement Commission (SEEC). The SEEC has issued a “declaratory ruling” that clarifies the

scope of the CFRA’s solicitation ban. According to the SEEC, a contractor or lobbyist may,

consistent with the CFRA’s solicitation ban, engage in a number of political activities; for example, a

contractor or lobbyist may “[v]olunteer for a . . . candidate’s political campaign,” “[e]xpress support

for a candidate,” “[r]un for office,” or “[b]e the spouse or dependent child of someone running for

office.” Green Party I, 590 F. Supp. 2d at 298 (quoting SEEC Declaratory Ruling 2006-1, at 5-6).

III. This Action

Plaintiffs-appellants (“plaintiffs”) brought this action in 2006 claiming that certain provisions

of the CFRA violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

Plaintiffs also claimed that the challenged provisions violated the Connecticut Constitution.

A. The Parties

We described the parties to this action in our first opinion:

Plaintiffs include two minor parties operating in Connecticut: the
Green Party of Connecticut and the Libertarian Party of Connecticut.
Plaintiffs also include several Connecticut-based lobbyists and state

in any fund-raising activities for a candidate committee, exploratory
committee, political committee or party committee, including, but not limited
to, forwarding tickets to potential contributors, receiving contributions for
transmission to any such committee or bundling contributions, (C) serving as
chairperson, treasurer or deputy treasurer of any such committee, or (D)
establishing a political committee for the sole purpose of soliciting or
receiving contributions for any committee. “Solicit” does not include
(i) making a contribution that is otherwise permitted under this chapter, (ii)
informing any person of a position taken by a candidate for public office or a
public official, (iii) notifying the person of any activities of, or contact
information for, any candidate for public office, or (iv) serving as a member
in any party committee or as an officer of such committee that is not
otherwise prohibited in this subdivision.

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9-601(26).

9
 contractors . . . . See Green Party II, 648 F. Supp. 2d at 302-06; J.A. [No. 09-
3760-cv(L)] 49-52 (Compl. ¶¶ 10-17).8

Defendants-[appellees] (“defendants”) include Jeffrey Garfield, who
is named in his official capacity as the Executive Director and General
Counsel of the State Elections Enforcement Commission, and Richard
Blumenthal, who is named in his official capacity as the Attorney General of
the State of Connecticut. See Green Party II, 648 F. Supp. 2d at 306; J.A. [No.
09-3760-cv(L)] 52 (Compl. ¶¶ 18-19).

The parties in this action also include several individuals and entities
who successfully moved to intervene as defendants. The intervenor-
defendants-appellants include three former major-party candidates for state
office and two advocacy groups: Connecticut Common Cause and
Connecticut Citizens Action Group. See Green Party II, 648 F. Supp. 2d at
306. The intervenor-defendants defend the constitutionality of the
[challenged provisions of the CFRA].

Green Party, No. 09-3760-cv(L), at __ , __ F.3d at __ .

B. The Claims

We also described plaintiffs’ claims in our first opinion:

Plaintiffs have organized their claims into five counts.9 In Count
One, plaintiffs claim that the CEP’s qualification criteria and distribution
formulae, Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 9-702(b), 704-05, violate the First Amendment
and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by
invidiously “discriminat[ing]” against minor parties and their candidates. See
J.A. 66 [No. 09-3760-cv(L)] (Compl. ¶ 53). In Counts Two and Three,
plaintiffs assert First Amendment challenges to the CEP’s excess expenditure
provision, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9-713 (Count Two), and the CEP’s
independent expenditure provision, id. § 9-714 (Count Three). See J.A. [No.
09-3760-cv(L)] 66-67 (Compl. ¶¶ 54-55).

8
Citations to the “Complaint” are to the amended complaint filed by the Green Party of
Connecticut and others on September 29, 2006.
9
As we noted in our first opinion, there are two operative complaints in this action: (1) an
“amended complaint” filed by the Green Party of Connecticut and others on September 29, 2006,
and (2) a “second amended complaint” filed by the Association of Connecticut Lobbyists and Barry
Williams on January 16, 2007. In discussing the various “counts” asserted by plaintiffs, we refer to
the counts contained in the complaint filed by the Green Party on September 29, 2006. See note 8,
ante. Count Four of the Green Party’s complaint is, for all relevant purposes, identical to the claims
raised in the complaint filed by the Association of Connecticut Lobbyists.

10
 In Counts Four and Five, plaintiffs assert First Amendment
challenges to aspects of the CFRA that do not involve the CEP. In Count
Four, plaintiffs challenge the CFRA’s bans on contributions (and the
solicitation of contributions) by registered lobbyists, state contractors, and
their families. Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 9-610(g)(h), 9-612(g). In Count Five,
plaintiffs challenge disclosure requirements imposed by the CFRA on state
contractors. Id. § 9-612(h)(2); see J.A. 67 (Compl. ¶¶ 56-57).

Green Party, No. 09-3760-cv(L), at __ , __ F.3d at __ .

Our first opinion addresses Counts One, Two, and Three. This opinion addresses Count

Four. Plaintiffs have not pursued Count Five in these appeals; thus we do not address it.

C. Proceedings in the District Court

The District Court disposed of plaintiffs’ claims by means of two separate judgments. First,

following cross-motions for summary judgment, the Court granted summary judgment to

defendants on Count Four, holding that the CFRA’s contribution and solicitation bans did not

violate the First Amendment. See Green Party I, 590 F. Supp. 2d 288. The Court evaluated each of

the challenged provisions under the so-called “closely drawn” standard, see Fed. Election Comm’n v.

Beaumont, 539 U.S. 146, 162 (2003), and held that in light of Connecticut’s recent corruption

scandals, each aspect of the contribution and solicitation bans were “closely drawn to the state’s

sufficiently important state interest of preventing actual and perceived corruption,” Green Party I, 590

F. Supp. 2d at 294.

On February 11, 2009, the District Court entered a partial final judgment for defendants

with respect to Count Four. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). Plaintiffs filed a timely appeal of that partial

final judgment, which we address in this opinion.

The Court then held a bench trial and, on September 2, 2009, entered a judgment in

plaintiffs’ favor with respect to Counts One, Two, and Three. See Green Party of Conn. v. Garfield

(“Green Party II”), 648 F. Supp. 2d 298 (D. Conn. 2009). Defendants filed a timely appeal of the

11
District Court’s September 2, 2009 judgment (2d Cir. Docket No. 09-3760-cv(L)), which we address

in our first, separately filed opinion.

DISCUSSION

We conduct a de novo review of a District Court’s decision to grant summary judgment. See,

e.g., Jeffreys v. City of N.Y., 426 F.3d 549, 553 (2d Cir. 2005). Summary judgment is appropriate if

“there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and . . . the movant is entitled to judgment as a

matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(2).

I. The CFRA’s Contribution Bans

We first consider whether the provisions of the CFRA that prohibit state contractors,

lobbyists, and associated individuals from making campaign contributions to candidates for state

office violate the First Amendment.

A. The Standard for Evaluating the CFRA’s Contribution Bans

In a long line cases beginning with Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), the Supreme Court has

distinguished laws restricting campaign expenditures and campaign-related speech from laws restricting

campaign contributions. The Court has determined that laws limiting campaign expenditures and

campaign-related speech “impose significantly more severe restrictions on protected freedoms of

political expression and association than do” laws limiting campaign contributions. Id. at 23. As a

result, the Court has evaluated laws limiting campaign expenditures and campaign-related speech

under the “strict scrutiny” standard, which “requires the Government to prove that the restriction

furthers a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.” Citizens United v. Fed.

Election Comm’n, 130 S. Ct. 876, 898 (2010) (quotation marks omitted).

For laws limiting campaign contributions, by contrast, the Court has conducted a “relatively

complaisant review under the First Amendment.” Beaumont, 539 U.S. at 161. Such laws, the Court

12
has concluded, are “merely ‘marginal’ speech restrictions,” since contributions “lie closer to the

edges than to the core of political expression.” Id. Thus, “instead of requiring contribution

regulations to be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest,” a law limiting

contributions “passes muster if it satisfies the lesser demand of being ‘closely drawn’ to match a

‘sufficiently important interest.’” Id. at 162 (quoting Nixon v. Shrink Mo. Gov’t PAC, 528 U.S. 377,

387-88 (2000)) (some quotation marks omitted); see also Buckley, 424 U.S. at 25.

The Court has always applied that lower standard—often referred to as the “closely drawn”

standard—to evaluate First Amendment challenges to laws restricting campaign contributions. See,

e.g., Randall v. Sorrell, 548 U.S. 230, 253 (2006) (plurality opinion); McConnell v. Fed. Election Comm’n,

540 U.S. 93, 138 n.40 (2003), overruled in part on other grounds by Citizens United, 130 S. Ct. at 913;

Beaumont, 539 U.S. at 161. The Court has applied the closely drawn standard even when the law in

question imposed an outright ban on contributions. In Beaumont, for instance, the Court applied the

closely drawn standard in upholding a federal law that banned all campaign contributions made by

corporations. See id. at 149, 161-62.

Although the Court’s campaign-finance jurisprudence may be in a state of flux (especially

with regard to campaign-finance laws regulating corporations), Beaumont and other cases applying the

closely drawn standard to contribution limits remain good law. Indeed, in the recent Citizens United

case, the Court overruled two of its precedents and struck down a federal law banning independent

campaign expenditures by corporations, but it explicitly declined to reconsider its precedents involving

campaign contributions by corporations to candidates for elected office. See 130 S. Ct. at 909

(“Citizens United has not made direct contributions to candidates, and it has not suggested that the

Court should reconsider whether contribution limits should be subjected to rigorous First

Amendment scrutiny.”).

13
 We will, therefore, evaluate the contribution bans imposed by the CFRA under the closely

drawn standard. We will uphold the statutory bans against plaintiffs’ First Amendment challenge

only if they are closely drawn to achieve a “sufficiently important” government interest. Beaumont,

539 U.S. at 162 (quotation marks omitted).

In so doing, we reject plaintiffs’ argument that we must apply strict scrutiny because the

provisions at issue here are bans, as opposed to mere limits. Such an argument was explicitly rejected

in Beaumont (which, as discussed above, remains binding precedent). See id. at 162. As Beaumont

concisely explained: “It is not that the difference between a ban and a limit is to be ignored; it is just

that the time to consider it is when applying scrutiny at the level selected, not in selecting the

standard of review itself.” Id. Accordingly, the closely drawn standard applies to the bans on

contributions imposed by the CFRA. As we discuss in greater detail below, however, the fact that

the provisions impose outright bans—and not limits—on contributions is a factor we will consider

when we “apply[] scrutiny at the level selected” and determine whether the provisions are, in fact,

closely drawn to achieve the state’s interests. Id.

B. The Ban on Contributions by Contractors and Associated Individuals

In assessing the CFRA’s ban on contributions by contractors and associated individuals, we

first determine whether the ban furthers a “sufficiently important” interest; we then determine

whether the ban is closely drawn to achieve that interest. See Beaumont, 539 U.S. at 162

1. Do the Bans on Contractor Contributions Further a “Sufficiently
Important” Interest?

As set forth above, the Connecticut General Assembly enacted the CFRA’s ban on

contractor contributions in response to a series of scandals in which contractors illegally offered

bribes, “kick-backs,” and campaign contributions to state officials in exchange for contracts with the

14
state. The ban was designed to combat both actual corruption and the appearance of corruption

caused by contractor contributions. See Green Party I, 590 F. Supp. 2d at 303.

Such an “anticorruption” interest, see Citizens United, 130 S. Ct. at 903, has been recognized as

a legitimate reason to restrict campaign contributions. Beginning with Buckley, the Supreme Court

has repeatedly held that laws limiting campaign contributions can be justified by the government’s

interest in addressing both the “actuality” and the “appearance” of corruption. 424 U.S. at 26; accord

McConnell, 540 U.S. at 143 (“Our cases have made clear that the prevention of corruption or its

appearance constitutes a sufficiently important interest to justify political contribution limits.”).

The record before us, moreover, shows that the General Assembly had good reason to be

concerned about both the “actuality” and the “appearance” of corruption involving contractors.

Connecticut’s recent corruption scandals showed that contributions by contractors could lead to

corruption. And it took no great leap of reasoning to infer that those scandals created a strong

appearance of impropriety in the transfer of any money between contractors and state

officials—whether or not the transfer involved an illegal quid pro quo. The scandals reached the

highest state offices, leading to the resignation and eventual criminal conviction and imprisonment

of the state’s governor. They were, as a result, covered extensively by local media and garnered the

attention of national media outlets as well. See Green Party II, 648 F. Supp. 2d at 307 n.9 (providing

examples of newspaper articles covering Connecticut’s corruption scandals). Thus, corruption

spurred by state contractors became a salient political issue in Connecticut, and there arose an

appearance of impropriety with respect to all contractor contributions. See Meadow Decl. ¶ 30 (May

24, 2007) (describing a public opinion poll in which 76% of Connecticut voters believed that

“campaign contributions Governor Rowland received influenced him in awarding government

contracts”).

15
 Accordingly, we conclude that the CFRA’s ban on contractor contributions furthers

“sufficiently important” government interests. See Beaumont, 539 U.S. at 162. There is sufficient

evidence in the record of actual corruption stemming from contractor contributions, and in light of

the widespread media coverage of Connecticut’s recent corruption scandals, the General Assembly

also faced a manifest need to curtail the appearance of corruption created by contractor

contributions.

2. Are the Bans on Contractor Contributions “Closely Drawn” to Achieve
the State’s Interest?

The more difficult question, however, is whether each aspect of the CFRA’s ban on

contractor contributions is closely drawn to achieve the state’s anticorruption interest. See Beaumont,

539 U.S. at 162. We first describe the standard for determining whether a statute is closely drawn to

achieve the state’s interest, and we then apply that standard to the provisions of the CFRA banning

contributions of state contractors, prospective state contractors, principals of state contractors, and

the spouses and dependent children of state contractors.

a. The Standard for Determining Whether a Statute is “Closely
Drawn”

On only one occasion has the Supreme Court held that a contribution limit was not closely

drawn to the government’s interests. In Randall v. Sorrell, the Supreme Court applied a multifactor

test and struck down a Vermont law that limited the amount of money that any single individual

could contribute to a campaign for state office. See 548 U.S. at 253-62. A plurality of the Court

found the law “too restrictive” because, among other things, its limits were so low that they

“prevent[ed] candidates from ‘amassing the resources necessary for effective [campaign] advocacy.’”

Id. at 248, 253 (quoting Buckley, 424 U.S. at 21) (second alteration in Randall).

16
 The District Court relied extensively on Randall’s multifactor test in determining whether the

CFRA’s contribution bans were “closely drawn” to the asserted government interests. See Green

Party I, 590 F. Supp. 2d at 309-16. We disagree with that approach. Randall addressed general

contribution limits that applied to all citizens. The law in Randall, for instance, prohibited any

Vermont resident from contributing more than $400 to a candidate for governor. See 548 U.S. at

238. Thus Randall’s multifactor test was concerned primarily with the effect the contribution limits

would have on the electoral system as a whole. See, e.g., id. at 248-49 (“[C]ontribution limits that are

too low can . . . harm the electoral process by preventing challengers from mounting effective

campaigns against incumbent officeholders, thereby reducing democratic accountability.” (emphasis

added)).

Here, however, plaintiffs are not challenging the provisions of the CFRA that impose

general contribution limits on all Connecticut citizens. See generally Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9-611

(imposing, for instance, a limit of $3500 on any individual’s contributions to a gubernatorial

campaign). Rather, plaintiffs are challenging the provisions of the CFRA that impose contribution

bans on discrete groups of Connecticut citizens. And unlike the situation in Randall, there is no

serious argument here that the challenged contribution bans will harm the electoral process by

stifling candidates’ ability to raise sufficient campaign funds. See 548 U.S. at 248-49. Indeed,

contributions by contractors and lobbyists have, in the past, made up only a small fraction of the

total amount of money given as campaign contributions in Connecticut. See Green Party I, 590 F.

Supp. 2d at 316.

Accordingly, the First Amendment inquiry in this case does not focus on the electoral process,

for the issue is not—as it was in Randall—whether the law in question “prevent[s] candidates from

‘amassing the resources necessary for effective [campaign] advocacy.’” Randall, 548 U.S. at 248

17
(quoting Buckley, 424 U.S. at 21) (second alteration in Randall). We will not, therefore, look to

Randall’s multifactor test as a means of evaluating whether the CFRA’s ban on contributions is

closely drawn to the state’s interests.

The issue, instead, is whether the CFRA’s contribution bans impermissibly infringe the First

Amendment rights of the discrete groups of citizens it regulates—contractors, lobbyists, and

associated individuals. To address that issue, we are required to examine how the CFRA applies to

the different groups of individuals it regulates and determine, in each case, whether the law is

closely drawn to the state’s interest in combating corruption and the appearance of corruption.

The CFRA’s ban on contractor contributions, in particular, applies not only to individuals who

currently have contracts with the state, but also to “prospective” state contractors who seek (but do

not currently have) state contracts. See Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9-612(g)(1)(E), (2)(A)-(B). It also applies

to any “principal” of an entity that has (or is seeking) contracts with the state, see id. § 9-612(g)(1)(F),

(2)(A)-(B), and it applies to any “spouse” or “dependent child” of a covered individual, see id.

§ 9-612(g)(1)(F)(v), (1)(G), (2)(A)-(B). To survive First Amendment scrutiny, the CFRA’s contractor

contribution bans must be “closely drawn” to the state’s anticorruption interest with respect to each

of those groups of individuals.

b. Current and “Prospective” Contractors

The CFRA applies to contributions made by any current state contractor, as well as any

“prospective state contractor,” id. § 9-612(g)(2)(A)-(B), which is defined to include, in essence, any

individual or entity that “submits a response” to a call for bids on state contracts, see id.

§ 9-612(g)(1)(E). That aspect of the CFRA is, without question, “closely drawn” to meet the state’s

interest in combating corruption and the appearance of corruption. It is undisputed that nearly all

of the corruption scandals that gave rise to the CFRA—including the scandal involving Governor

18
Rowland—involved both current and prospective state contractors offering bribes in exchange for

assistance in winning new state contracts. See Green Party I, 590 F. Supp. 2d at 304-06.

Contributions by current and prospective state contractors, therefore, lie at the heart of the

corruption problem in Connecticut.

Thus, insofar as it applies to campaign contributions made by both current and prospective

state contractors, see Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9-612(g)(1)(D)-(E), (2)(A)-(B), the CFRA is closely drawn

and survives First Amendment scrutiny.

c. “Principals” of Contractors

If an artificial entity, rather than an individual, is awarded (or seeks) a state contract, the

CFRA bans contributions made by any “principal” of that entity.10 See id. § 9-612(g)(1)(F), (2)(A)-

(B). A “principal” is defined to include, among other things, (1) any member of the entity’s board of

directors,11 (2) any “individual” who “has an ownership interest of five per cent or more” in the

entity, (3) the “president, treasurer or executive vice president” of the entity,12 and (4) any “officer”

or “employee” of either a business entity or a nonprofit organization who “has managerial or

discretionary responsibilities with respect to a state contract.”13

10
We note that many state contractors are likely artificial entities, so the provisions
governing the behavior of “principals” of contractors are particularly important.
11
Although in most cases, the CFRA applies equally to for-profit and nonprofit
organizations, the definition of “principal” does not include “an individual who is a member of the
board of directors of a nonprofit organization.” Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9-612(g)(1)(F)(i).
12
If the entity is “not a business entity,” the CFRA applies to the “chief executive officer” of
the entity or “the officer who duly possesses comparable powers and duties.” Conn. Gen. Stat.
§ 9-612(g)(1)(F)(iii).
13
“Principal” is also defined to include the “spouse” or “dependent child” of a contractor.
See Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9-612(g)(1)(F)(v). We discuss that aspect of the definition separately. See note
1, ante.

19
 The definition of “principal” sweeps broadly and prevents a wide range of individuals from

contributing to campaigns for state office. We have some doubts, therefore, as to whether the

provision is indeed closely drawn to achieve the state’s anticorruption interest.

Nonetheless, we are mindful of the teachings of the Supreme Court that we, as judges,

cannot consider each possible permutation of a law limiting contributions, and thus we “cannot

determine with any degree of exactitude the precise restriction necessary to carry out the statute’s

legitimate objectives.” Randall, 548 U.S. at 248. Moreover, in light of the troubling episodes

involving state contractors in Connecticut’s recent history, we are reluctant to second-guess the

judgment of the General Assembly when it defines which individuals associated with an artificial

entity are likely to attempt to exert improper influence over a state official.

We will, therefore, follow the “ordinar[y]” approach in evaluating the ban on principal

contributions and “defer[] to the legislature’s determination of such matters.” Id. The ban on

principals’ contributions strikes us as bordering on overboard, but the record shows that the dangers

of corruption associated with contractor contributions are so significant in Connecticut that the

General Assembly should be afforded leeway in its efforts to curb contractors’ influence on state

lawmakers.

We thus conclude that, insofar as it applies to campaign contributions made by “principals”

of state contractors or prospective state contractors, see Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9-612(g)(1)(F), (2)(A)-(B),

the CFRA is closely drawn and withstands First Amendment scrutiny.

“Principal” is also defined to include “a political committee established or controlled by an
individual described in [subparagraph (F)] or the business entity or nonprofit organization that is the
state contractor or prospective state contractor.” See Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9-612(g)(1)(F)(vi).

20
 d. Spouses and Children of Contractors

The CFRA not only bans contributions by contractors, prospective contractors, and the

principal of any contractor or prospective contractor; it also bans contributions by the “spouse” or

“dependent child” of any of those covered individuals. See Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9-612(g)(1)(F)(v),

(1)(G), (2)(A)-(B). Defendants do not attempt to justify the ban on family-member contributions by

arguing that a contractor’s family members will themselves attempt to exert improper influence over

a state official. See Appellees’ Br. 80-83, 98. That is for good reason, as there is no record evidence

to suggest that the spouses or dependent children of state contractors have been in any way involved

in Connecticut’s recent corruption scandals (or, for that matter, any other corruption scandals of

which the parties have made us aware). Rather, defendants attempt to justify the ban on family-

member contributions by arguing that it is a “reasonable measure to avoid circumvention of the

prohibition of contributions by [contractors].” Id. at 80. That is, defendants argue that contractors

and other covered individuals will avoid the CFRA’s ban on contractor contributions by siphoning

their improper contributions through their spouses and children.

The Supreme Court has recognized that, in regulating campaign contributions, the legislature

must be given “room to anticipate and respond to concerns about circumvention of regulations

designed to protect the integrity of the political process.” McConnell, 540 U.S. at 137; see also

Beaumont, 539 U.S. at 155. Nonetheless, the Court has struck down so-called anti-circumvention

provisions where the government has put forward only “scant evidence” of a particular “form of

evasion.” McConnell, 540 U.S. at 232.

Here, the record in support of the ban on contributions by contractors’ spouses and

dependent children is by no means overwhelming. There is little direct evidence suggesting that

contractors will use their spouses or children to circumvent the CFRA’s contribution bans.

21
Nevertheless, the recent corruption scandals in Connecticut have shown that contractors are willing

to resort to varied forms of misconduct to secure contracts with the state. That, we think, is far

more than the “scant evidence” required by McConnell. See id.

In light of the recent corruption scandals, therefore, the General Assembly must be given

“room to anticipate and respond to concerns about” the “circumvention” of the bans on contractor

contributions. Id. at 137. Indeed, were we to affirm the ban on contributions by contractors but

strike down the ban on contributions by their family members, we would invite the very

circumvention that the General Assembly was trying to prevent.

Thus, we conclude that the CFRA’s ban on contributions by contractors’ spouses and

dependent children, see Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9-612(g)(1)(F)(v), (1)(G), (2)(A)-(B), is “closely drawn” to

avoid the circumvention of the ban on contractor contributions.

e. A “Ban” as Opposed to a “Limit”

Finally, we consider the fact that the CFRA imposes an outright ban—not a mere limit—on

contributions made by contractors, prospective contractors, and their principals. That fact, as

discussed above, does not require us to review the law under the strict scrutiny standard. But we

must nevertheless determine whether an outright ban on contractor contributions is closely drawn to

the state’s anticorruption interest. See Beaumont, 539 U.S. at 162 (“It is not that the difference

between a ban and a limit is to be ignored; it is just that the time to consider it is when applying

scrutiny at the level selected, not in selecting the standard of review itself.”).

The majority of campaign laws reviewed by the Supreme Court—and other courts—have

involved limits on contributions, not bans. See, e.g., Randall, 548 U.S. at 246; Nixon, 528 U.S. at 381;

Cal. Med. Ass’n v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 453 U.S. 182, 184 (1981); Buckley, 424 U.S. at 13. The Court

has, however, upheld the longstanding federal “ban on direct corporate contributions.” Beaumont,

22
539 U.S. at 154. That is enough to demonstrate that laws banning contributions by a discrete group

are not unconstitutional per se.

Yet a ban is a drastic measure. A limit on contributions causes some constitutional damage,

as it “restrict[s] ‘one aspect of the contributor’s freedom of political association.’” Randall, 548 U.S. at

246 (quoting Buckley, 424 U.S. at 24-25) (emphasis added). But a ban on contributions causes

considerably more constitutional damage, as it wholly extinguishes that “aspect of the contributor’s

freedom of political association.” A limit, moreover, leaves intact the contributor’s right to make

“the symbolic expression of support evidenced by a contribution.” Id. at 247 (quoting Buckley, 424

U.S. at 21). But a ban infringes that constitutional right, as it precludes the “symbolic expression”

that comes with a small contribution.

There are, therefore, undoubtedly many situations in which a strict contribution limit—as

opposed to an outright contribution ban—will adequately achieve the government’s objectives. In

those situations it will be difficult for the government to establish that a contribution ban is “closely

drawn” to its asserted interests. Instead, such a ban risks being struck down as unconstitutionally

overbroad.

Here, for example, a limit—as opposed to a ban—would likely be sufficient to address the

General Assembly’s interest in addressing actual corruption. If, for example, the CFRA were to

allow contractors to make small contributions (say, $50 per election) to state officials, it is unlikely

that a contractor could exert any influence over an official with the promise of such a modest sum.

Yet such a limit would not wholly extinguish a contractor’s associational rights, and it would allow

the contractor to make “the symbolic expression of support evidenced by a contribution.” Id. at 247

(quoting Buckley, 424 U.S. at 21). Thus, if the state’s only interest in this case were combating actual

corruption, the CFRA’s outright ban on contractor contributions would likely be held overbroad.

23
 Combating actual corruption, however, is not the state’s only interest here; the CFRA is also

meant to address the appearance of corruption caused by contractor contributions. See Green Party I,

590 F. Supp. 2d at 303. As discussed above, Connecticut’s recent corruption scandals were widely

publicized, and corruption involving state contractors became a major political issue in Connecticut

in recent years. See subsection I.B.2.e, ante. A limit on contractor contributions would have partially

addressed the perception of corruption created by those incidents, but such a limit still would have

allowed some money to flow from contractors to state officials. Even if small contractor

contributions would have been unlikely to influence state officials, those contributions could have

still given rise to the appearance that contractors are able to exert improper influence on state

officials.

The CFRA’s ban on contractor contributions, by contrast, unequivocally addresses the

perception of corruption brought about by Connecticut’s recent scandals. By totally shutting off the

flow of money from contractors to state officials, it eliminates any notion that contractors can

influence state officials by donating to their campaigns. Thus, although the CFRA’s ban on

contractor contributions is a drastic measure, it is an appropriate response to a specific series of

incidents that have created a strong appearance of corruption with respect to all contractor

contributions.

We hold, as a result, that in light of Connecticut’s recent experience with corruption scandals

involving state contractors, the CFRA’s imposition of an outright ban on contributions by

contractors, prospective contractors, and their principals, see Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9-612(g), is closely

drawn to the state’s interest in combating the appearance of corruption.

24
 B. The Ban on Contributions by Lobbyists and Their Families

The CFRA’s ban on contributions by lobbyists presents markedly different considerations

than the CFRA’s ban on contributions by contractors. The distinction centers on the fact that the

recent corruption scandals in Connecticut in no way involved lobbyists. See, e.g., Green Party I, 590 F.

Supp. 2d at 321 (“[L]obbyists ha[ve] not been directly linked to the pay-to-play scandals, which

primarily involved state contractors offering bribes in exchange for preferential treatment . . . .”

(emphasis added)).

As a restriction on campaign contributions, not campaign expenditures, we review the CFRA’s

ban on lobbyists contributions under the closely drawn standard. See Beaumont, 539 U.S. at 162;

subsection I.A, ante. We will uphold the ban against plaintiffs’ First Amendment challenge only if it

is closely drawn to achieve sufficiently important government interests. Beaumont, 539 U.S. at 162.

Defendants seek to justify the ban on lobbyist contributions as necessary to combat both

actual corruption and the appearance of corruption. We decline to decide whether those interests

are sufficiently important in this context, see id., for “[e]ven assuming, arguendo, the Government

advances an important interest,” McConnell, 540 U.S. at 232, the CFRA’s ban on lobbyist

contributions is not closely drawn to the asserted interests.

As set forth above, see subsection I.B.2.e, ante, an outright ban on contributions is a drastic

measure that substantially infringes “one aspect of the contributor’s freedom of political

association.” Randall, 548 U.S. at 246 (quoting Buckley, 424 U.S. at 24-25). As opposed to a

contribution limit, which merely restricts those First Amendment freedoms, see id., a contribution ban

utterly eliminates an individual’s right to express his or her support for a candidate by contributing

money to the candidate’s cause. Indeed, a contribution ban cuts off even the “symbolic expression

of support evidenced by” a small contribution. Id. at 247 (quoting Buckley, 424 U.S. at 21). Thus, if

25
the state’s interests in this case can be achieved by means of a limit on lobbyist contributions, rather

than a ban, the ban should be struck down for failing “to avoid unnecessary abridgment of

associational freedoms,” Buckley, 424 U.S. at 25.14

We have upheld the CFRA’s ban on contractor contributions because the recent corruption

scandals in Connecticut have created an appearance of corruption with respect to all exchanges of

money between state contractors and candidates for state office. We have held that an outright ban

on contractor contributions was justified (i.e., closely drawn to meet the state’s anticorruption

interest) because even a severe limit on contractor contributions would allow a small flow of

contributions between contractors and candidates and would, as a result, likely give rise to an

appearance of corruption.

The situation is different with lobbyists. The recent corruption scandals had nothing to do

with lobbyists, see Green Party I, 590 F. Supp. 2d at 321, and thus there is insufficient evidence to infer

that all contributions made by state lobbyists give rise to an appearance of corruption. Plaintiffs

have submitted some evidence suggesting that many members of the public generally distrust

lobbyists and the “special attention” they are believed to receive from elected officials. See, e.g.,

Meadow Decl. ¶¶ 13-14, 26. But as the Supreme Court has recently clarified, the anticorruption

interest recognized by Buckley and other cases is “limited to quid pro quo corruption” and does not

encompass efforts to limit “[f]avoritism and influence” or the “appearance of influence or access.”

Citizens United, 130 S. Ct. at 909-10 (quotation marks omitted). “The fact that speakers may have

influence over or access to elected officials does not mean that these officials are corrupt,” and

14
We reiterate that we are not applying strict scrutiny, and thus we acknowledge that the ban
on lobbyist contributions need not be narrowly tailored to achieve the state’s anticorruption interest.
Nonetheless, the ban must be closely drawn to the state’s interest, a standard that requires some
measure of tailoring. In this context, if a contribution limit would suffice where a ban has been
enacted, the ban is not closely drawn to the state’s interests.

26
favoritism and influence are “[un]avoidable in representative politics.” Id. at 910 (quotation marks

omitted). Influence and access, moreover, are not sinister in nature. Some influence, such as wise

counsel from a trusted advisor—even if that advisor is a lobbyist—can enhance the effectiveness of

our representative government.

Accordingly, there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that all lobbyist contributions give

rise to an appearance of corruption, and the evidence demonstrating that lobbyist contributions give

rise to an appearance of “influence,” see, e.g., Meadow Decl. ¶ 26, has no bearing on whether the

CFRA’s ban on lobbyist contributions is closely drawn to the state’s anticorruption interest. We

conclude, as a result, that on this record, a limit on lobbyist contributions would adequately address

the state’s interest in combating corruption and the appearance of corruption on the part of

lobbyists.15 The CFRA’s ban on lobbyist contributions, therefore, is not closely drawn to achieve the

state’s anticorruption interest. Thus, we hold that the CFRA’s ban on lobbyist contributions, Conn.

Gen. Stat. § 9-610(g), violates the First Amendment.16

II. The CFRA’s Solicitation Bans

As set forth above, the CFRA prohibits contractors and lobbyists from “solicit[ing]”

contributions “on behalf of” candidates for state office. See Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 9-610(h),

9-612(g)(2). That prohibition applies to current state contractors, prospective state contractors, and

the principals of current and prospective state contractors, as well as to the spouses and dependent

children of covered lobbyists and contractors. See id. §§ 9-601(24), 9-610(h), 9-612(g)(1)(F), (2).

15
Again we emphasize that the recent corruption scandals in Connecticut in no way
implicated lobbyists. See Green Party I, 590 F. Supp. 2d at 321.
16
The CFRA’s ban on contributions by a lobbyist’s spouse or dependent children, a measure
intended to prevent lobbyists from circumventing the contribution ban, is likewise not closely drawn
to achieve the state’s anticorruption interest. On this record, therefore, it too violates the First
Amendment.

27
 Unlike laws limiting contributions, which present “marginal speech restrictions” that “lie

closer to the edges than to the core of political expression,” Beaumont, 539 U.S. at 161 (quotation

marks omitted), a limit on the solicitation of otherwise permissible contributions prohibits exactly

the kind of expressive activity that lies at the First Amendment’s “core.” That is because the

solicitation of contributions involves speech—to solicit contributions on behalf of a candidate is to

make a statement: “You should support this candidate, not only at the polls but with a financial

contribution.” Whatever may be said about whether money is speech, see, e.g., Davis v. Fed. Election

Comm’n, 128 S. Ct. 2759, 2778-79 & n.3 (2008) (Stevens, J., dissenting in part), speech is speech, even

if it is speech about money, see, e.g., Bates v. State Bar of Ariz., 433 U.S. 350, 363 (1977) (“[O]ur cases

long have protected speech even though it is . . . in the form of a solicitation to pay or contribute

money . . . .”). Speech “‘uttered during a campaign for political office,’” moreover, requires the

“‘fullest and most urgent application’” of the protections set forth in the First Amendment. Citizens

United, 130 S. Ct. at 898 (quoting Eu v. S.F. County Democratic Cent. Comm., 489 U.S. 214, 223 (1989))

(quotation marks omitted).

Thus, the CFRA’s provisions banning the solicitation of contributions are “[l]aws that

burden political speech” and are, as a result, “‘subject to strict scrutiny,’ which requires the

Government to prove that the restriction ‘furthers a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to

achieve that interest.’” Id. (quoting Fed. Election Comm’n v. Wis. Right to Life, Inc., 551 U.S. 449, 464

(2007) (Opinion of Roberts, C.J.)).17

17
We recognize that McConnell declined an invitation to apply strict scrutiny to certain
provisions of federal law that banned the solicitation of contributions. See 540 U.S. at 138-40. As
the District Court in this case concisely explained, however, the McConnell solicitation provisions
largely “barred the solicitation of contributions that the potential donor would have been prohibited
from making in the first place.” Green Party I, 590 F. Supp. 2d at 339 (citing McConnell, 540 U.S. at
138). Strict scrutiny certainly does not apply to laws prohibiting the solicitation of illegal
contributions, just as strict scrutiny does not apply to laws prohibiting the solicitation of other

28
 The state attempts to justify the CFRA’s solicitation bans, like the CFRA’s contribution

bans, as a means to combat corruption and the appearance of corruption. Although the

anticorruption interest has been held sufficiently important to justify restrictions on contributions,

see, e.g., McConnell, 540 U.S. at 143; Buckley, 424 U.S. at 25-26, in reviewing limits on campaign

expenditures under the strict scrutiny standard, the Supreme Court has consistently held that the

anticorruption interest is not a compelling government interest, see, e.g., Citizens United, 130 S. Ct. at

908-09 (striking down a restriction on corporate independent expenditures); Buckley, 424 U.S. at 45

(striking down a different restriction on independent expenditures).

As we observed above, moreover, “[w]hen Buckley identified a sufficiently important

governmental interest in preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption, that interest was

limited to quid pro quo corruption.” Citizens United, 130 S. Ct. at 909. It is easy to see how a “large

contribution[]” can be “given to secure a political quid pro quo from current and potential office

holders.” Buckley, 424 U.S. at 26. That is the “hallmark” of corruption: “dollars for political favors.”

Fed. Election Comm’n v. Nat’l Conservative Political Action Comm., 470 U.S. 480, 497 (1985). It is far more

difficult to see how an individual might secure a political favor by recommending that another person

prohibited activity. See, e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285, 297 (2008) (“Offers to engage in
illegal transactions are categorically excluded from First Amendment protection.”).
Here, however, the CFRA’s solicitation bans prohibit contractors and lobbyists from
soliciting contributions that are otherwise legal for the contributors to make. Such provisions are
categorically different from most of the provisions at issue in McConnell, a point the state
“concede[d]” to the District Court. See Green Party I, 590 F. Supp. 2d at 339. Many of the
solicitation provisions in McConnell took the ordinary step of banning the solicitation of
contributions that were already prohibited; thus strict scrutiny was plainly inapplicable. The CFRA,
by contrast, takes the extraordinary step of banning the solicitation of contributions that are not
otherwise prohibited; that is a burden on political speech requiring the application of strict scrutiny.
In any event, to the extent that a few of the provisions in McConnell banned the solicitation
of otherwise legal contributions, McConnell is distinguishable: the extreme breadth of the CFRA’s
solicitation provisions—unlike the provisions in McConnell—justifies the application of strict scrutiny
because the CFRA’s provisions “burden[] speech in a way that a direct restriction on the
contribution itself would not.” McConnell, 540 U.S. at 139.

29
make a campaign contribution, if for no other reason than that the third person must exercise his

own free will to make a contribution.

Nevertheless, the District Court upheld the CFRA’s solicitation bans based primarily upon

its finding that contractors and lobbyists could exert improper influence over state officials by

“bundling campaign contributions” made by their clients or employees. Green Party I, 590 F. Supp.

2d at 343 & n.33. The threat posed by “bundling” is that contractors and lobbyists will promise to

deliver large numbers of coordinated contributions to a state official in exchange for political favors.

A prospective state contractor, for instance, might promise to organize a large fundraising event in

exchange for a candidate’s assistance in securing a lucrative state contract.

There are good reasons to think that the threat of bundling does not provide a compelling

justification for the solicitation bans, especially with regard to lobbyists. But even assuming, without

deciding, that the threat of bundling makes the anti-corruption interest compelling in this context,

the CFRA’s ban on solicitations is by no means narrowly tailored to address that threat.

In order to narrowly tailor a law to address a problem, the “government must curtail speech

only to the degree necessary to meet the particular problem at hand,” and the government “must

avoid infringing on speech that does not pose the danger that has prompted regulation.” Fed.

Election Comm’n v. Mass. Citizens for Life, Inc., 479 U.S. 238, 265 (1986). The government must prove

that there is no “less restrictive alternative” to the law in question, for “[i]f a less restrictive

alternative would serve the Government’s purpose, the legislature must use that alternative.” United

States v. Playboy Entm’t Group, Inc., 529 U.S. 803, 813 (2000).

Here, the state has not met its burden to show that the CFRA’s solicitation ban is narrowly

tailored to address the problem posed by “bundling,” for the ban prohibits a wide range of activity

unrelated to bundling, and there are several less restrictive alternatives that would more directly

30
address the perceived bundling threat. For one thing, the CFRA prohibits small-scale solicitation

efforts that could not possibly be deemed “bundling.” A state contractor, for instance, is prohibited

under the CFRA from advising his mother about whether she should contribute to a particular

gubernatorial candidate. A less restrictive alternative to address the problem of bundling would be

to ban only large-scale efforts to solicit contributions—for example, a ban on state contractors

organizing fundraising events of a certain size.

In addition, the problem with bundling, according to the District Court, is that lobbyists will

bundle contributions by their “deep-pocketed clients” and state contractors will bundle

contributions from their “many employees and subcontractors.” Green Party I, 590 F. Supp. 2d at

343. If that is the case, then a less restrictive means to address the bundling problem would be

simply to ban lobbyists from soliciting contributions from their clients and contractors from

soliciting contributions from their employees and subcontractors. The CFRA, however, bans all

solicitation efforts by lobbyists and contractors—even those not directed at clients, employees, or

subcontractors.

Finally, insofar as the CFRA’s solicitation ban was intended to combat corruption and the

appearance of corruption caused by “bundling,” the state has not adequately explained why it could

not simply outlaw bundling itself. Indeed, the CFRA currently defines the term “solicit” to include,

among other things, “bundling contributions,” see Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9-601(26), and the SEEC has

issued a decision that defines the term “bundling,” see Green Party I, 590 F. Supp. 2d at 297 (citing

SEEC Declaratory Ruling 2006-1, at 4). The problem is that, in addition to banning bundling, the

CFRA also bans many other activities that often do not involve bundling. See Conn. Gen. Stat.

§ 9-601(26) (broadly defining “solicit” to include, among other things, “requesting that a

contribution be made” and “serving as . . . deputy treasurer” of a “political committee”).

31
 We are not, of course, called upon here to determine the constitutionality of other,

hypothetical laws. Our conclusion is only that less restrictive alternatives exist, and thus the state has

not met its burden of showing that the CFRA’s solicitation ban is narrowly tailored. We hold,

therefore, that on this record, the CFRA’s bans on the solicitation of contributions, see Conn. Gen.

Stat. §§ 9-610(h), 9-612(g)(2), violate the First Amendment.

III. Remaining Claims

In addition to their First Amendment claims, plaintiffs have asserted claims under the Equal

Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as under the

Connecticut Constitution.

The equal protection and due process claims, asserted only by the Association of

Connecticut Lobbyists and Barry Williams, challenge provisions of the CFRA that we have struck

down under the First Amendment—namely, the CFRA’s ban on lobbyist contributions and the

solicitation of contributions by lobbyists. Thus we need not address those claims.

With respect to the claims under the Connecticut Constitution, we agree with the District

Court that “there is no indication” in Connecticut case law that the Connecticut Constitution

“provide[s] broader protection [than] the [federal constitutional] rights at issue here.” Green Party I,

590 F. Supp. 2d at 346. Thus, insofar as we have held that certain provisions of the CFRA are

consistent with the First Amendment, the Connecticut Constitution provides no additional

basis—beyond the First Amendment—for challenging the CFRA. Insofar as we have held that

certain provisions of the CFRA violate the First Amendment, it is unnecessary for us to

decide—and we expressly decline to decide—whether those provisions also violate the Connecticut

Constitution.

32
IV. The Severability of the Unconstitutional Provisions and the Appropriate Injunctive
Relief

We have held that two aspects of the CFRA violate the First Amendment: the ban on

lobbyist contributions and the ban on the solicitation of contributions. The question arises,

therefore, whether those provisions are severable from the CFRA or whether the entire CFRA must

be struck down along with the unconstitutional provisions. The District Court did not consider the

severability issue because it held that each of the challenged provisions was constitutional.

In our first opinion, published today, which addressed plaintiffs’ challenge to the CFRA’s

Citizen Election Program (CEP), we remanded the cause to the District Court to determine in the

first instance whether certain unconstitutional provisions of the CEP were severable. We specifically

instructed the District Court to examine the meaning of § 9-717 of the General Statutes of

Connecticut in connection with its ruling on the severability issue.18

18
That statute, which was recently amended, now reads in full:

(a) If, during a period beginning on or after the forty-fifth day prior to any
special election scheduled relative to any vacancy in the General Assembly
and ending the day after such special election, a court of competent
jurisdiction prohibits or limits, or continues to prohibit or limit, the
expenditure of funds from the Citizens’ Election Fund established in section
9-701 for grants or moneys for candidate committees authorized under
sections 9-700 to 9-716, inclusive, for a period of seven days or more, (1)
sections 1-100b, 9-700 to 9-716, inclusive, 9-750, 9-751 and 9-760 and
section 49 of public act 05-5 of the October 25 special session shall be
inoperative and have no effect with respect to any race of such special
election that is the subject of such court order until the day after such special
election, and (2) (A) the amendments made to the provisions of the sections
of the general statutes pursuant to public act 05-5 of the October 25 special
session shall be inoperative until the day after such special election with
respect to any such race, (B) the provisions of said sections of the general
statutes, revision of 1958, revised to December 30, 2006, shall be effective
until the day after such special election with respect to any such race, and (C)
the provisions of subsections (g) to (j), inclusive, of section 9-612 shall not be
implemented until the day after such special election with respect to any such
race.

33
(b) Except as provided for in subsection (a) or (c) of this section, if, on or
after April fifteenth of any year in which a state election is scheduled to
occur, a court of competent jurisdiction prohibits or limits, or continues to
prohibit or limit, the expenditure of funds from the Citizens’ Election Fund
established in section 9-701 for grants or moneys for candidate committees
authorized under sections 9-700 to 9-716, inclusive, for a period of thirty
days or more, (1) sections 1-100b, 9-700 to 9-716, inclusive, 9-750, 9-751 and
9-760 and section 49 of public act 05-5 of the October 25 special session
shall be inoperative and have no effect with respect to any race that is the
subject of such court order until December thirty-first of such year, and (2)
(A) the amendments made to the provisions of the sections of the general
statutes pursuant to public act 05-5 of the October 25 special session shall be
inoperative until December thirty-first of such year, (B) the provisions of said
sections of the general statutes, revision of 1958, revised to December 30,
2006, shall be effective until December thirty-first of such year, and (C) the
provisions of subsections (g) to (j), inclusive, of section 9-612 shall not be
implemented until December thirty-first of such year. If, on the April
fifteenth of the second year succeeding such original prohibition or
limitation, any such prohibition or limitation is in effect, the provisions of
subdivisions (1) and (2) of this section shall be implemented and remain in
effect without the time limitation described in said subdivisions (1) and (2).

(c) If, during a year in which a state election is held, on or after the second
Tuesday in August set aside as the day for a primary under section 9-423, a
court of competent jurisdiction prohibits or limits the expenditure of funds
from the Citizens’ Election Fund established in section 9-701 for grants or
moneys for candidate committees authorized under sections 9-700 to 9-716,
inclusive, for a period of fifteen days, or if said Tuesday occurs during a
period of fifteen days or more in which period such a court continues to
prohibit or limit such expenditures, then, after any such fifteen-day period,
(1) sections 1-100b, 9-700 to 9-716, inclusive, 9-750, 9-751 and 9-760 and
section 49 of public act 05-5 of the October 25 special session shall be
inoperative and have no effect with respect to any race that is the subject of
such court order until December thirty-first of such year, and (2) (A) the
amendments made to the provisions of the sections of the general statutes
pursuant to public act 05-5 of the October 25 special session shall be
inoperative until December thirty-first of such year, (B) the provisions of said
sections of the general statutes, revision of 1958, revised to December 30,
2006, shall be effective until December thirty-first of such year, and (C) the
provisions of subsections (g) to (j), inclusive, of section 9-612 shall not be
implemented until December thirty-first of such year. If, on the April
fifteenth of the second year succeeding such original prohibition or
limitation, any such prohibition or limitation is in effect, the provisions of
subdivisions (1) and (2) of this section shall be implemented and remain in

34
 We adopt that same approach here and remand to the District Court to determine whether

the unconstitutional provisions of the CFRA addressed in this opinion are severable from the

remainder of the law. In so doing the District Court should examine the relevancy, if any, of

§ 9-717. After the District Court has ruled on the severability issue, it should then enter appropriate

injunctive relief in light of our holdings in this opinion.

CONCLUSION

In summary, we hold as follows:

(1) The CFRA’s bans on contributions by state contractors, lobbyists, and associated

individuals, see Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 9-610(g), 9-612(g)(2)(A)-(B), are “marginal speech restrictions”

that withstand scrutiny under the First Amendment if they are “closely drawn to match a sufficiently

important [government] interest.” Fed. Election Comm’n v. Beaumont, 539 U.S. 146, 161-62 (2003)

(quotation marks omitted).

(2) The CFRA’s ban on contractor contributions, see Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9-612(g)(2)(A)-(B), is

consistent with the First Amendment. The ban furthers “sufficiently important” government

interests, Beaumont, 539 U.S. at 162 (quotation marks omitted), in that it addresses both the

“actuality” and the “appearance” of corruption involving state contractors, see Buckley v. Valeo, 424

U.S. 1, 26 (1976). It is also “closely drawn” to achieve those interests. Beaumont, 539 U.S. at 162

effect without the time limitation described in said subdivisions (1) and (2).

(d) Any candidate who has received any funds pursuant to the provisions of
sections 1-100b, 9-700 to 9-716, inclusive, 9-750, 9-751 and 9-760 and
section 49 of public act 05-5 of the October 25 special session prior to any
such prohibition or limitation taking effect may retain and expend such funds
in accordance with said sections unless prohibited from doing so by the
court.

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9-717 (as amended by Public Act 10-2 on April 14, 2010).

35
(quotation marks omitted). With respect to the ban on contractor contributions, therefore, we

affirm the District Court’s grant of summary judgment to defendants.

(3) The CFRA’s ban on lobbyist contributions, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9-610(g), violates the First

Amendment. Although an outright ban on contractor contributions can be justified as a means to

address the appearance of corruption caused by Connecticut’s recent corruption scandals, those

scandals did not involve lobbyists and thus do not provide sufficient justification for an outright ban

on lobbyist contributions. Rather, even assuming, without deciding, that the state’s anticorruption

interest is “sufficiently important” in this context, an outright ban on lobbyist contributions—as

opposed to a mere limit on lobbyist contributions—is not closely drawn to achieve the state’s

interest. See Beaumont, 539 U.S. at 162. With respect to the ban on lobbyist contributions, therefore,

we reverse the District Court’s grant of summary judgment to defendants and instruct the Court to

grant summary judgment to plaintiffs.

(4) The CFRA’s ban on the solicitation of contributions, see Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 9-610(h),

9-612(g)(2)(A)-(B), is a law that “burden[s] political speech” and is, as a result, subject to strict

scrutiny, Citizens United v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 130 S. Ct. 876, 898 (2010). The law will be upheld

only if the “[state] . . . prove[s] that the restriction furthers a compelling interest and is narrowly

tailored to achieve that interest.” Id. (quotation marks omitted).

(5) Under the strict scrutiny standard, the CFRA’s solicitation ban, see Conn. Gen. Stat.

§§ 9-610(h), 9-612(g)(2)(A)-(B), violates the First Amendment. Even assuming, without deciding,

that the state has a “compelling” interest in preventing contractors and lobbyists from “bundling”

contributions, the state has failed to establish that the CFRA’s solicitation ban is narrowly tailored to

meet that interest because the law prohibits numerous activities unrelated to “bundling.” With

36
respect to the solicitation ban, therefore, we reverse the District Court’s grant of summary judgment

to defendants and instruct the Court to grant summary judgment to plaintiffs.

(6) We need not address plaintiffs’ equal protection and due process claims, for they

challenge provisions of the CFRA that we have struck down under the First Amendment—namely,

the CFRA’s ban on lobbyist contributions and the solicitation of contributions by lobbyists.

(7) Insofar as we have upheld certain provisions of the CFRA under the First Amendment,

we likewise uphold those provisions under the Connecticut Constitution, which provides no

additional basis—beyond the First Amendment—for challenging the provisions in question. Insofar

as we have held that certain provisions of the CFRA violate the First Amendment, it is unnecessary

for us to decide—and we expressly decline to decide—whether those provisions also violate the

Connecticut Constitution.

(8) We remand the cause to the District Court (a) to determine, in the first instance, whether

the unconstitutional provisions of the CFRA are severable from the remainder of the statute; (b) to

grant appropriate injunctive relief in light of our holdings in this opinion and the District Court’s

resolution of the severability issue on remand; and (c) to conduct any further proceedings, consistent

with this opinion, that may be required.

* * *

The February 11, 2009 partial judgment of the District Court on Count Four of this action is

AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED in part as set forth in sections (1) through (7) of this

conclusion. The cause is REMANDED to the District Court for further proceedings in

accordance with the instructions set forth in section (8) of this conclusion.

37
 Recognizing that an election has been scheduled for November 2, 2010, and given the

importance of this case to ongoing campaigns for state office, we request that the District Court act

expeditiously in considering the issues presented for decision on remand.

38