In a decision that will have immediate implications for one of the most competitive state political campaign cycles in years, a federal appeals court overruled a lower court's conclusion that the state's landmark campaign finance reform law unconstitutionally discriminates against minor party candidates.
However, in a densely worded, 56- page decision, the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court's invalidation of two of the finance reform law's "trigger provisions" that govern excess and independent campaign expenditures. The decision, written by appeals court Judge Jose Cabranes of New Haven, said the trigger provisions violate the first amendment rights of candidates and other individuals and organizations to "spend their own funds on campaign speech."
The decision on public financing of campaigns was one of two released in New York Tuesday on the state's campaign finance reform law.
A second 38-page decision upheld some and rejected other parts of the state law restricting campaign contributions and political activity by lobbyists and state contractors.
The appeals court upheld U.S. Districut Judge Stefan R. Underhill's conclusion that the law's ban on contributions by state contractors, prospective state contractors, the principals of contractors and prospective state contractors is valid under first amendment free speech protections.
But the appeals court reversed Underhill and struck down the provisions of the law that bans contributions by lobbyists and their families and that prohibits contractors, lobbyists, and their families from soliciting contributions on behalf of candidates. Such prohibitions violate the first amendment, the decision said.
The appeals court ordered ordered Underhill to revisit some issues connected with the law's trigger provisions.