LOS ANGELES(CN) — A federal judge has upheld an ordinance in the Southern California city of West Covina that limits contributions to City Council candidates to $500 per year.
U.S. District Judge Michael Fitzgerald, a Barack Obama appointee, wrote in an 8-page order this week that the city had satisfied its burden in showing a “sufficiently important governmental interest” in the contribution limit. Prior to the passage of the limit, a newspaper article revealed the main contributors to candidates were wealthy real estate developers.
Plaintiff Rambod Sotoodeh is a West Covina businessman. He’s running for the seat in City Council District 5 against the incumbant, Tony Wu.
In his complaint, Sotoodeh said the ordinance “significantly limited” his ability to run an effective campaign.
Sotoodeh claimed he has numerous individuals who would be able to donate more than $500, and without the limit he would be able to rent office space and hire campaign workers.
He also said his ability to raise money was further chilled because it is a criminal misdemeanor, punishable by fine or possible jail time, for knowingly or willingly violating the ordinance.
In his complaint, Sotoodeh cited the U.S.Supreme Court case Randall v. Sorrell, which invalidated a Vermont law limiting individual contributions on a per-election basis to $400 for governor, $300 for state senator and $200 for a state representative. The Supreme Court ruled in that case that contribution limits that are too low harm the electoral process.
Because of this, Sotoodeh said the West Covina ordinance violates the First Amendment. He asked for an award of $5 million in damages and a block of the ordinance. Fitzgerald declined, handing the city summary judgment.
“The Supreme Court has identified only one legitimate governmental interest for restricting campaign finances: preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption,” Fitzgerald wrote in his order.
Under the West Covina Municipal Code, one of the purposes of the contribution limit is to “combat corruption and undue influence” and “restore public trust in governmental electoral institutions,” Fitzgerald wrote. Before the code was established, candidates were compelled to take large amounts of money from persons with specific financial stake in matters before the City Council, causing a public perception that votes may be improperly influenced by monetary contributions.
“Therefore, the city has satisfied its burden to demonstrate a sufficiently important governmental interest in the contribution limitation,” Fitzgerald wrote.
Sotoodeh also argued that the limit was both too low and overly broad.
“The city’s contribution limit is not the lowest in California and district courts in California have upheld $500 contribution limits for other cities. Furthermore, the contribution limit is adjusted for inflation,” Fitzgerald wrote.
As for the overbreadth claims, Fitzgerald found Sotoodeh failed to show the instances of arguable overbreadth of the contested law.
“Here, given that plaintiff does not dispute the constitutionality of the limits first adopted by the city in 1985, he is essentially asking the court to police a distinction in degree, not a difference in kind. The Ninth Circuit has declined to second guess this kind of legislative judgment. Accordingly, the court concludes the city’s ordinance is ‘closely drawn’ to a sufficiently important governmental interest, and thus, the motion is granted,” Fitzgerald wrote.
Sotoodeh's attorney Frank Weiser said in an email that his client intends to appeal.
Counsel for the city did not reply to a request for comment by press time.
Subscribe to Closing Arguments
Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.
