United States Ninth Circuit

In California Pro-Life Council's action challenging certain provisions of California's Political Reform Act (PRA), including the PRA's definition of "contribution" and the recipient committee requirements imposed on a multi-purpose organization, such as plaintiff, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed in part, but reversed in part where: 1) the state demonstrated the existence of a compelling governmental interest and the PRA's definition of "contribution" is narrowly tailored to promote its compelling informational interest; and 2) the state failed to demonstrate how the additional political committee-like requirements are narrowly tailored to advance its compelling governmental interest.

Appellate Information

• Argued 02/12/2007
• Decided 11/14/2007
• Published 11/14/2007

Judges

• RAWLINSON, Circuit Judge:, Before:  JOHN T. NOONAN, RONALD M. GOULD, and JOHNNIE B. RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Ninth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• James Bopp, Jr. (briefed and argued), Richard E. Coleson (briefed), Terre Haute, IN, for the appellant., Trevor Potter, J. Gerald Hebert, Paul S. Ryan, Washington, DC;  Daniel R. Ortiz, Charlottesville, VA, for amicus curiae Campaign Legal Center., Rob McKenna, Attorney General, Nancy Krier, Senior Counsel, Olympia, WA, for amici curiae States of Washington, Arizona, Hawaii, Iowa, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico and Oregon.


• For Appellees:
  
• Teri L. Block (argued), Luisa Menchaca (briefed), Lawrence T. Woodlock (briefed and argued), Fair Political Practices Commission General Counsel;  Louis R. Mauro, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Catherine M. Van Aken, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Robert E. Leidigh, Deputy Attorney General, Kathryn Gimple (briefed), Sacramento, CA, for the appellees.