In late December I wrote that the City of San Diego has "a series of campaign laws long ripe for a challenge on First Amendment grounds," and further asked, "Yet, what candidates have ever wanted to take on those laws at the risk of being perceived in the media — and at the hands of opponents — as wanting to loosen restrictions?"
This was in response to the news that a coalition was — finally — doing just that.
In case you missed it, a Federal court last week ruled against the City of San Diego’s overly restrictive campaign laws. Jim Lacy summarized it on Wednesday in his column here on the FlashReport:
A Federal court in San Diego yesterday issued a permanent injunction against the City of San Diego’s $500 contribution limit per person to independent expenditure committees involved in City elections. The ruling quotes the recent Citizens United case we have written about, and is a logical step, following the U.S. Supreme Court’s predicate, on the path of ultimately banning limitations on contributions to Federal PACs that engage in independent expenditure advocacy. Congratulations to the San Diego County GOP and their great election attorney, Jim Bopp, Jr.
Jim Sills commented on Lacy’s FR entry, further noting that the local ordinance dates to 1973, with the County of San Diego following the lead with similar restrictions in 1975. "This ruling by Hon. Irma Gonzalez, if upheld," Sills writes, "is the biggest news in San Diego election law in 37 years."
Indeed.
Here is the California Republican Party’s response…
CRP Statement Concerning Federal Court Ruling Barring Enforcement of Certain Campaign Finance Laws in San Diego
SACRAMENTO – California Republican Party Chairman Ron Nehring this afternoon issued the following statement in response to the federal court ruling in Thalheimer v. San Diego prohibiting the City of San Diego from enforcing certain campaign laws found to likely be unconstitutional:
"The impact of the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Citizens United v FEC will now be felt in California as a federal court found multiple San Diego campaign finance laws to be unconstitutionally restrictive and interfere with free speech protected by the First Amendment.
"Restrictions on political speech like those the court has barred San Diego from enforcing do not favor Republicans or Democrats, but they do favor one party – the incumbent party. By restricting when challenger candidates could launch their campaigns and prohibiting political parties from directly contributing to their candidates for city office, San Diego’s campaign finance scheme protected incumbents who by virtue of their office have limitless access to the news media, government-funded contact with constituents, and other politically valuable benefits.
"This ruling will make elections more competitive in San Diego while placing other localities on notice that the obligation to protect the First Amendment rights of citizens applies to them too.
More information:
United States District Court Ruling on Preliminary Injunction in Thalheimer v. San Diego
###
That’s all for now. Have a great week!