Case 1:13-cv-06769-PAC Document 24 Filed 10/04/13 Page 1 of 31 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------------------x : NEW YORK PROGRESS AND PROTECTION PAC, : : Plaintiff, : : v. : No. 13 Civ. 6769 (PAC) : : JAMES A. WALSH, et al., : : Defendants. : : --------------------------------------------------------------------------x CORRECTED MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General of the State of New York Attorney for the State Defendants 120 Broadway, 24th Floor New York, New York 10271 (212) 416-6211 RICHARD DEARING EVA DIETZ JANE GOLDBERG JOSHUA PEPPER JOHN M. SCHWARTZ JUDITH VALE of Counsel Case 1:13-cv-06769-PAC Document 24 Filed 10/04/13 Page 2 of 31 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................................... ii PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .....................................................................................................1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE ........................................................................................................3 ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................................6 I. NYPPP Fails To Clearly Establish That It Will Suffer Irreparable Harm Absent a Preliminary Injunction ..............................................................................8 II. The Requested Preliminary Injunction Should Also Be Denied Because Changing New York’s Contribution Rules at this Late Date Would Impair the Fairness and Integrity of the Fast-Approaching Election. ...............................11 1. NYPPP’s Undue Delay in Requesting Injunctive Relief Bars the Relief Sought. ...............................................................................................11 2. A Preliminary Injunction Would Seriously Impair the Fairness of the Election and Thereby Cause Substantial Harm to the State Defendants and the Public Interest. ..............................................................13 III. The Preliminary Injunction Should Be Denied for the Independent Reason that NYPPP Fails To Demonstrate a Substantial Likelihood of Success on the Merits ...............................................................................................................16 1. NYPPP Challenges a Contribution Limit That Receives Less Rigorous Constitutional Scrutiny Than Laws Limiting Spending on Political Campaigns. .....................................................................................16 2. New York’s Contribution Limit Is Closely Drawn To Address the Important State Interest of Preventing Actual or Apparent Corruption. ...................................................................................................18 3. Even if the Law Were Unconstitutional As Applied to Contributions to Independent-Expenditure Committees, NYPPP’s Self-Serving Claims of Independence Would Be Insufficient To Warrant a Preliminary Injunction. .................................................................................24 CONCLUSION ..........................................................................................................................25 i Case 1:13-cv-06769-PAC Document 24 Filed 10/04/13 Page 3 of 31 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Page(s) Ala. Democratic Conference v. Broussard, No. 11-16040, 2013 WL 5273304 (11th Cir. Sept. 19, 2013) ................................. 25 Bray v. City of N.Y., 346 F. Supp. 2d 480 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) ............................................................... 12, 13 Bronx Household of Faith v. Bd. of Educ. of City, 331 F.3d 342 (2d Cir. 2003) ...................................................................................... 9 Brooklyn Heights Ass’n., v. Nat’l Park Serv., 777 F. Supp. 2d 424 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) ....................................................................... 6 Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) ............................................................................................. passim Citizens Against Rent Control v. City of Berkeley, 454 U.S. 290 (1981) ................................................................................................ 10 Conservative Party of N.Y. State v. N.Y. State Bd. of Elections, No. 10-cv-6923, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114155 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 15, 2010) ...... 14, 15 Dexter 345, Inc. v. Cuomo, 663 F.3d 59 (2d Cir. 2011) ........................................................................................ 6 Emily’s List v. FEC, 581 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2009) .................................................................................... 24 FEC v. Beaumont, 539 U.S. 146 (2003) .................................................................................... 16, 17, 18 FEC v. Colo. Republican Fed. Campaign Comm., 533 U.S. 431 (2001) .......................................................................................... 19, 20 Foley v. State Elections Enforcement Comm’n, No. 10-cv-1091, 2010 WL 2836722 (D. Conn. July 16, 2010) ........................ 6, 8, 12 Hessel v. Christie’s Inc., 399 F. Supp. 2d 506 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) ..................................................................... 11 KF v. Monroe Woodbury Cent. Sch. Dist., 12-cv-2200, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60341 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 30, 2012) ...................... 9 ii Case 1:13-cv-06769-PAC Document 24 Filed 10/04/13 Page 4 of 31 Lair v. Bullock, 697 F.3d 1200 (9th Cir. 2012) ................................................................................ 16 Latino Officers Ass’n v. Safir, 170 F.3d 167 (2d Cir. 1999) ...................................................................................... 9 Mastrovincenzo v. City of New York, 435 F.3d 78 (2d Cir. 2006) ........................................................................................ 7 McComish v. Brewer, No. cv-08-1550, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83307 (D. Ariz. Oct. 17, 2008), aff’d 653 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2011) .......................................................................... 14, 15 McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93 (2003) ...................................................................................... 18, 20, 23 McDonald v. N.Y.C. Campaign Finance Bd., 40 Misc. 3d 826 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. County 2013) .......................................................... 5 Monserrate v. N.Y. State Senate, 599 F.3d 148 (2d Cir. 2010) ...................................................................................... 6 Nixon v. Shrink Mo. Gov’t PAC, 528 U.S. 377 (2000) ................................................................................................ 17 Ognibene v. Parkes, 671 F.3d 174 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 28 (2012) ................... 17, 18, 19, 21 Respect Maine PAC v. McKee, 622 F.3d 13 (1st Cir. 2010) ................................................................... 11, 12, 13, 15 Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964) .......................................................................................... 13, 14 Speechnow.org v. FEC, 599 F.3d 686 (D.C. Cir. 2010) ................................................................................ 23 Stop This Insanity, Inc. Employee Leadership Fund v. FEC, 902 F. Supp. 2d 23 (D. D.C. 2012) ......................................................................... 25 Sussman v. Crawford, 488 F.3d 136 ............................................................................................................. 8 Tri-Star Pictures, Inc. v. Leisure Time Prods., B.V., 17 F.3d 38 (2d Cir. 1994) ........................................................................................ 12 iii Case 1:13-cv-06769-PAC Document 24 Filed 10/04/13 Page 5 of 31 Vt. Right to Life Comm., Inc. v. Sorrell, 875 F. Supp. 2d 376 (D. Vt. 2012) .............................................................. 19, 24, 25 Wada Mktg. Grp., LLC v. Ven-Co Produce, Inc., No. 11-cv-3052, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120660 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 9, 2011) (Crotty, J.) ........................................................................................................... 8, 11 Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305 (1982) .................................................................................................. 6 Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) ...................................................................................................... 7 Worley v. Roberts, 749 F. Supp. 2d 1321 (N.D. Fla. 2010) .................................................................. 14 State Statutes Election Law § 11-114(b) ................................................................................................................ 4 § 14-100(9)(1) .......................................................................................................... 22 § 14-114(1)(b), (10)(a) ............................................................................................... 3 Miscellaneous Authorities Brennan Ctr. for Justice, National Survey: Super PACs, Corruption, and Democracy (2012), available at http://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/national-survey-super-pacs- corruption-and-demoncracy ................................................................................... 22 Campaign Finance Handbook, available at www.nyccfb.info/candidates/candidates/handbooks/2013_Handbook.pdf .............. 4 Celeste Katz, Campaign Finance Board Protests Pro-Joe Lhota Group’s Lawsuit;