Thomas D. Carver v. Jeremiah W. Nixon ( 1995 )


Menu:
  •                                   ___________
    No. 95-2608
    ___________
    Thomas D. Carver,                      *
    *
    Appellant, *
    *
    v.                                *   Appeal from the United States
    *   District Court for the
    Jeremiah W. Nixon, Attorney            *   Western District of Missouri.
    General, State of Missouri;            *
    John Maupin, Chair, Missouri           *
    Ethics Commission,                     *
    *
    Appellees.       *
    ___________
    Submitted:     September 13, 1995
    Filed:   December 19, 1995
    ___________
    Before BOWMAN, ROSS and JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judge.
    The campaign contribution limits in Proposition A, Mo. Ann. Stat.
    § 130.100 (Vernon Supp. 1995), adopted by initiative, were declared
    constitutional by the district court, which refused to enjoin their
    implementation.   Carver v. Nixon, 
    882 F. Supp. 901
    (W.D. Mo. 1995).   Thomas
    D. Carver appeals, arguing that the district court erred in ruling that the
    Proposition A contribution limits for state and local candidates did not
    violate a contributor's freedoms of speech and association under the First
    Amendment.   We conclude that section 130.100 is unconstitutional and
    reverse the judgment of the district court.
    In the spring of 1994, the Missouri General Assembly passed Senate
    Bill 650, adopting campaign contribution limits to become effective January
    1, 1995.       See Mo. Rev. Stat. § 130.032 (1994). Voters approved Proposition
    A   at       the   November   8,   1994   election.   Proposition   A   adopted   lower
    contribution limits and became effective immediately.1
    1
    Proposition A provides:
    There shall be the following limitations on campaign
    contributions:
    (1)       No person or committee shall make a contribution to
    any one candidate or candidate committee with an
    aggregate value in excess of:
    (a)   $100 per election cycle per candidate in
    districts with fewer than 100,000 residents[.]
    (2)   [sic] $200 per election
    cycle   per   candidate,
    other   than   statewide
    candidates,           in
    districts of 100,000 or
    more residents.      For
    purposes     of     this
    section      "statewide
    candidates" refers to
    those       candidates
    seeking election to the
    office    of   Governor,
    Lieutenant     Governor,
    Attorney       General ,
    Auditor, Treasurer and
    Secretary of State.
    (3)   [sic] $300 per election cycle per statewide
    candidate.
    (2)       No person, entity or committee shall make a
    contribution to any other persons, entities or
    committees for the purpose of contributing to a
    specific candidate which when added together with
    contributions made directly to the candidate or to
    the candidate's committee, will have an aggregate
    value in excess of the limits stated in section 1.
    (3)       No candidate or candidate committee shall solicit
    or accept any contribution with an aggregate value
    in excess of the limits stated in this section.
    (4)       For purposes of this section the term "candidate"
    shall include the candidate, the candidate's
    -2-
    treasurer, and the candidate's committee and any
    contribution to the candidate's treasurer or
    candidate committee shall be deemed a contribution
    to the candidate.
    Mo. Ann. Stat. § 130.100.
    -3-
    The       Missouri   Attorney   General   issued    an   opinion    stating   that,
    although both Proposition A and Senate Bill 650 "concern campaign finance,
    they are not irreconcilably inconsistent."         Missouri Ethics Commission, Op.
    Atty. Gen. No. 218-94 (Dec. 6, 1994), at 4.              The Attorney General stated
    that the two provisions stand together in regulating campaign finance, and
    to the extent there is a conflict between specific provisions of the
    statutes, the more restrictive provision prevails.               
    Id. Thus, the
    lower
    2
    campaign contribution limits of Proposition A control.
    The contribution limits in Proposition A are limits "per election
    cycle per candidate."3         Mo. Ann. Stat. § 130.100.         The statute provides
    that no person or committee shall make a contribution to any one candidate
    or candidate committee with an aggregate value in excess of: (a) $100 for
    candidates in districts with fewer than 100,000 residents; (b) $200 for
    other than statewide candidates in districts of 100,000 or more residents;
    and   (c)       $300 for statewide candidates.           Mo. Ann. Stat. § 130.100.
    Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, Auditor, Treasurer, and
    Secretary of State are enumerated as statewide candidates for purposes of
    the section.        Mo. Ann. Stat. § 130.100(2) [sic].
    Senate Bill 650 imposed limits for each election.                     Thus, on an
    election cycle basis, the Senate Bill 650 limits are twice the amount
    enumerated in the text of Senate Bill 650.         See Mo. Rev. Stat. § 130.032.1.
    Contributions are limited to $1,000 per
    2
    Other provisions of Senate Bill 650 and Proposition A were
    the subject of litigation in Shrink Missouri Government PAC v.
    Maupin, 
    892 F. Supp. 1246
    (E.D. Mo. 1995). We heard the appeal in
    that case on the same day as this appeal. See Shrink Mo. Gov't PAC
    v. Maupin, No. 95-2857, slip op. (8th Cir. Dec. 19, 1995).
    3
    An election cycle is "the period of time from general
    election for an office until the next general election for the same
    office." Mo. Stat. Ann. § 130.011 (Vernon Supp. 1995). Thus, an
    election cycle includes the primary and general election.
    -4-
    election   for   Governor    and    other    statewide   offices,   as    well    as   for
    candidates in districts with a population of at least 250,000.                   Mo. Rev.
    Stat. §§ 130.032.1(1), (6).          There is a $500 per election contribution
    limit for candidates for State Senate, and for any office in electoral
    districts with a population between 100,000 and 250,000.                 Mo. Rev. Stat.
    §§ 130.032.1(2), (5).    Contributions are limited to $250 per election for
    candidates for State Representative and for offices in districts of a
    population less than 100,000.         Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 130.032.1(3), (4).
    Carver brought this action to enjoin enforcement of Proposition A.
    He asserted that Proposition A restricted his ability to make contributions
    in violation of his rights of free speech and association.               He also argued
    that the limits are so low as to unconstitutionally interfere with his
    ability to support candidates and to communicate with potential supporters
    for fundraising purposes.          He argued that Proposition A is not narrowly
    tailored to meet the State's interests of avoiding corruption or the
    appearance of corruption, and will not prevent wealthy special interests
    from opposing candidates.
    After hearing evidence and receiving briefs, the district court
    denied the injunction.      
    Carver, 882 F. Supp. at 902
    .      The court recognized
    that Buckley v. Valeo, 
    424 U.S. 1
    (1976) (per curiam), governed the issues.
    
    Carver, 882 F. Supp. at 903
    .          The court read from Buckley that "a major
    purpose of the First Amendment is to protect political speech," and that
    "[l]imitations on these rights are permissible where a compelling state
    interest is served, if the limitations imposed are narrowly tailored to
    serve that interest."    
    Carver, 882 F. Supp. at 903
    -04.        The court observed
    that the Supreme Court has recognized that governments have a compelling
    interest in preventing corruption and the appearance of corruption that may
    result from individuals making large contributions to candidates.                 
    Id. at 904
    (citing 
    Buckley, 424 U.S. at 25-27
    ).
    -5-
    The district court ruled that the Proposition A limits were not so
    low as to be an unconstitutional restriction of First Amendment rights.
    
    Id. at 904
    -05.   The court held that "the law is tailored narrowly enough
    to help the state meet its goals of eliminating some of the means of
    corruption and of avoiding the appearance of corruption."     
    Id. at 906.
      The
    court observed that Proposition A does not prevent candidates from spending
    their own money on their campaigns.4    
    Id. The court
    stated that, although
    Proposition A does not address all of the problems related to campaign
    finance, it is a positive step toward eliminating political corruption,
    even if it is not comprehensive.         
    Id. It may
    not close all of the
    loopholes, but that does not make it unconstitutional.            
    Id. Carver appeals.
    I.
    Carver argues before us, as he did in the district court, that the
    Proposition A contribution limits restrict his First Amendment rights to
    political communication and association.        He contends that, because the
    Proposition A limits burden fundamental First Amendment rights, they are
    subject to strict scrutiny and do not serve a compelling state interest.
    The State argues that we should apply an intermediate standard of review,
    but even if we apply strict scrutiny, the Proposition A limits are narrowly
    tailored to address a compelling state interest.
    4
    This issue was not before the district court. However, the
    district court in Shrink Missouri Government 
    PAC, 882 F. Supp. at 1251
    , addressed the applicability of Proposition A to the
    candidate's own contributions. The district court found that when
    Proposition A and Mo. Rev. Stat. § 130.011(12)(a) (1994) are read
    together, the statute limits a candidate's ability to spend his own
    money on his campaign. 
    Id. Finding that
    Buckley prohibits a limit
    on the amount a candidate may contribute to his own campaign, the
    district court enjoined the application of section 130.011(12)(a)
    to the Proposition A contribution limits. Shrink Mo. Gov't 
    PAC, 882 F. Supp. at 1251
    . We affirmed this holding in Shrink Missouri
    Government PAC v. Maupin, No. 95-2857, slip op. at 3-4.
    -6-
    The Supreme Court identified the interests implicated by contribution
    limits in 
    Buckley, 424 U.S. at 14
    (citations omitted):
    [C]ontribution and expenditure limitations operate in an area
    of the most fundamental First Amendment activities. . . . The
    First Amendment affords the broadest protection to such
    political expression in order "to assure [the] unfettered
    interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and
    social changes desired by the people."     . . .   "[T]here is
    practically universal agreement that a major purpose of that
    Amendment was to protect the free discussion of governmental
    affairs, . . . of course includ[ing] discussions of
    candidates . . . ."
    "[C]ontribution and expenditure limitations impose direct quantity
    restrictions on political communication and association by persons, groups,
    candidates, and political parties . . . ."       
    Id. at 18.
    In view of these fundamental interests, the Court has instructed that
    campaign contribution limits are "subject to the closest scrutiny."        
    Id. at 25
    (quoting NAACP v. Alabama, 
    357 U.S. 449
    , 460-61 (1958)).       Under this
    standard, "a significant interference with protected rights of political
    association may be sustained" only when the State can demonstrate "a
    sufficiently important interest and employs means closely drawn to avoid
    unnecessary   abridgment   of   associational   freedoms."    
    Id. (quotations omitted)
    (citing Cousins v. Wigoda, 
    419 U.S. 477
    , 488 (1975); NAACP v.
    Button, 
    371 U.S. 415
    , 438 (1963); Shelton v. Tucker, 
    364 U.S. 479
    , 488
    (1960)).
    After identifying the interests and the applicable level of review,
    the Court in 
    Buckley, 424 U.S. at 58-59
    , upheld the constitutionality of
    the $1,000 contribution limit for federal elected offices.           The Court
    reasoned that the $1,000 contribution limit focused precisely on the
    problem of large campaign contributions and, therefore, was narrowly
    tailored to the goal of
    -7-
    limiting corruption and the appearance of corruption.            
    Id. at 26-28.
       The
    Court pointed out that a contribution limit "entails only a marginal
    restriction upon the contributor's ability to engage in free communication"
    and does not materially undermine "the potential for robust and effective
    discussion of candidates and campaign issues . . . ."             
    Id. at 20-21,
    29.
    The Court characterized a contribution as only "a general expression of
    support   for     the   candidate   and    his    views,"    explaining   that    "the
    transformation of contributions into political debate involves speech by
    someone other than the contributor."            
    Id. at 21.
    The Court recognized that "contribution restrictions could have a
    severe impact on political dialogue if the limitations prevented candidates
    and   political    committees   from    amassing    the   resources   necessary    for
    effective advocacy."       
    Id. at 21.
        The Court found no evidence that the
    $1,000 limit prevented candidates and political committees from amassing
    the resources necessary for effective advocacy.              
    Id. at 21.
      The Court
    refused to analyze the propriety of the specific dollar amount of the
    contribution limits.     
    Id. at 30.
       The Court cautioned, however, that if the
    contribution limits were too low, the limits could be unconstitutional.
    
    Id. The Court
    struck down the independent expenditure limitation which
    prohibited a candidate from using more than $1,000 of his own money in his
    campaign and also limited a candidate's total campaign expenditures.              
    Id. at 39.
       The Court distinguished limits on expenditures from limits on
    contributions, concluding that the expenditure limits were more restrictive
    of speech, as they "necessarily reduce[] the quantity of expression by
    restricting the number of issues discussed, the depth of their exploration,
    and the size of the audience reached.             This is because virtually every
    means of communicating in today's mass society requires the expenditure of
    money."   
    Id. at 19
    (footnote omitted).
    -8-
    In addition, the Court concluded that the government interest in
    preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption could not justify the
    ceiling on independent expenditures.          
    Id. at 45,
    53-54.     The Court found
    little relationship between the interest of avoiding corruption and
    limiting expenditures to one's own campaign or limiting overall campaign
    expenditures, particularly in light of the limit on campaign contributions.
    
    Id. at 55.
    The State argues that the Court in Buckley applied strict scrutiny
    only to legislation limiting independent expenditures and applied a lower,
    intermediate standard of review to contribution limits.                   Citing the
    passages from Buckley referred to above, the State argues that contribution
    limits    are   entitled   to   an   intermediate    level    of   scrutiny   because
    contributions are only symbolic expression of support, and limiting
    contributions does not infringe on the contributor's freedom to discuss
    candidates and issues.
    We recognize that the Court distinguished restrictions on independent
    expenditures from restrictions on contributions.           
    Buckley, 424 U.S. at 20
    -
    21.   Since Buckley, members of the Court, in dicta, have indicated that
    contribution limits should receive a lower level of scrutiny.             See Federal
    Election Comm'n v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, 
    479 U.S. 238
    , 259-60
    (1986); California Medical Ass'n v. Federal Election Comm'n, 
    453 U.S. 182
    ,
    196 (1981) (Marshall, J., plurality); Citizens Against Rent Control v.
    Berkeley, 
    454 U.S. 290
    , 301 (1981) (Marshall, J., concurring in judgment).
    In contrast, other members of the Court strongly disagree, arguing that
    nothing less than strict scrutiny should apply to contribution limits.            See
    California Medical 
    Ass'n, 453 U.S. at 201-02
    (Blackmun, J., concurring in
    part and in judgment); Citizens Against Rent 
    Control, 454 U.S. at 302
    (Blackmun and O'Connor, JJ., concurring in judgment) ("ordinance cannot
    survive    constitutional       challenge   unless    it     withstands     ``exacting
    scrutiny'").     The Court has not ruled that anything other than
    -9-
    strict scrutiny applies in cases involving contribution limits.         When the
    Court in Buckley analyzed the contribution limits, it articulated and
    applied a strict scrutiny standard of review.       
    Id. at 25
    .   Therefore, like
    other courts since the Buckley decision, we must apply the "rigorous"
    standard of review articulated in Buckley.         See, e.g., Harwin v. Goleta
    Water Dist., 
    953 F.2d 488
    , 491 n.6 (9th Cir. 1991) (recognizing that
    contribution limits may be subject to a lower level of scrutiny, but
    requiring the government to show "a sufficiently important interest and
    employ[]   means   closely   drawn   to   avoid    unnecessary   abridgement   of
    associational freedoms") (quoting 
    Buckley, 424 U.S. at 25
    ).
    Moreover, that voters adopted Proposition A by initiative does not
    affect the applicable level of scrutiny.          We must analyze Proposition A
    under the same standard that we apply to the product of a legislature.         "It
    is irrelevant that the voters rather than a legislative body enacted [a
    statute], because the voters may no more violate the Constitution by
    enacting a ballot measure than a legislative body may do so by enacting
    legislation."   Citizens Against Rent 
    Control, 454 U.S. at 295
    .
    Thus, we apply strict scrutiny in this case, and the State must show
    that the Proposition A limits are narrowly tailored to meet a compelling
    state interest.    "When the Government defends a regulation on speech . .
    . it must do more than simply ``posit the existence of the disease sought
    to be cured.' . . .   It must demonstrate that the recited harms are real,
    . . . and that the regulation will in fact alleviate these harms in a
    direct and material way."     United States v. National Treasury Employees
    Union, 
    115 S. Ct. 1003
    , 1017 (1995) (quoting Turner Broadcasting Sys., Inc.
    v. Federal Communications Comm'n, 
    114 S. Ct. 2445
    , 2470 (1994) (Kennedy,
    J., plurality)).
    -10-
    II.
    In 
    Buckley, 424 U.S. at 25
    -26, the Court identified the compelling
    interest as "the prevention of corruption and the appearance of corruption
    spawned by the real or imagined coercive influence of large financial
    contributions on candidates' positions and on their actions if elected to
    office."    
    Id. at 25
    (emphasis added).        The Court reiterated this interest
    at least seven times.         
    Id. at 25
    -29.     It found it unnecessary to look
    beyond this primary interest to the remaining interests offered to justify
    contribution limits.         
    Id. at 25
    -26 (identifying the other interests as
    equalizing the relative ability of all citizens to affect the outcome of
    an election and slowing the skyrocketing cost of political campaigns).           The
    Court,     in   discussing   large   contributions,    specifically   referred   to
    5
    disturbing examples surfacing after the 1972 election.                
    Id. at 27.
    Examining the 1974 election, the Court found that the $1,000 contribution
    limit would not severely impact political dialogue, pointing out that most
    contributions (94.9 percent in the 1974 election) came from contributions
    of $1,000 or less.      
    Id. at 21
    n.23, 26 n.27.       The Court decided that in
    addition to requiring the disclosure of contributions, Congress was
    entitled to conclude that contribution limits were necessary "to deal with
    the reality or appearance of
    5
    In 
    Buckley, 424 U.S. at 27
    n.28, the Court cites the court of
    appeals discussion of such abuses in Buckley v. Valeo, 
    519 F.2d 821
    , 839-40 nn.36-38 (D.C. Cir. 1975) (per curiam). The court of
    appeals listed examples of large contributions including: dairy
    organizations pledging two million dollars to the Nixon campaign in
    an effort to schedule a meeting with White House officials
    regarding price supports, 
    id. at 839
    n.36; contributions from the
    American Dental Association to incumbent California congressmen,
    
    id. at 839
    n.37; contributions by H. Ross Perot, whose company
    supplied data processing for medicare and medicaid programs, to
    members of the House Ways and Means Committee, the Senate Finance
    Committee, and the House Appropriations Committee, id.; and large
    contributions by those seeking ambassadorial appointments from
    President Nixon, 
    id. at 840
    n.38.
    -11-
    corruption    inherent    in    a   system    permitting   unlimited   financial
    contributions."    
    Id. at 28.
    The Supreme Court recently reaffirmed that the compelling interest
    identified in Buckley was limiting large contributions to candidates.        The
    Court stated:
    Buckley identified a single narrow exception to the rule
    that limits on political activity were contrary to the First
    Amendment. The exception relates to the perception of undue
    influence of large contributors to a candidate:
    To the extent that large contributions are given to
    secure a political quid pro quo from current and
    potential office holders, the integrity of our
    system     of    representative     democracy    is
    undermined. . . .
    . . . Congress could legitimately conclude
    that the avoidance of the appearance of improper
    influence is also critical . . . if confidence in
    the system of representative Government is not to
    be eroded to a disastrous extent.
    Citizens Against Rent 
    Control, 454 U.S. at 296-97
    (citations and quotations
    omitted) (emphasis added).
    The district court held that "[u]nder Buckley, Missouri clearly has
    a compelling state interest in limiting campaign contributions."        
    Carver, 882 F. Supp. at 904
    .     This does not square with the interest of limiting
    "large campaign contributions" as defined in Buckley.       The district court's
    decision substantially broadens the compelling interest identified in
    Buckley.   The district court erred as a matter of law in extending Buckley
    to the infinitely broader interest of limiting all, not just large,
    campaign contributions.
    -12-
    The rationale of the district court's opinion is perhaps explained
    by the State's argument before us.        The State sets out the compelling state
    interest justifying Proposition A in general terms.             The State identifies
    the compelling interest as that of attacking, "not just the reality, but
    even the appearance or perception of corruption that may take the form of
    a ``quid pro quo' between a contributor and a candidate."6                    The State,
    however,    fails   to   refine   this   general   interest     consistent    with   the
    compelling interest defined by the Court in Buckley as limiting the reality
    or perception of undue influence and corruption from large contributions.
    See Citizens Against Rent 
    Control, 454 U.S. at 296-97
    .                 We examine the
    contribution    limits    in   section   130.100   in   light    of   this   compelling
    interest.
    6
    In its amicus brief, The Association of Community
    Organizations For Reform Now (ACORN) adds the two interests not
    reached in Buckley to justify the contribution limits in
    Proposition A. ACORN includes equalizing the relative ability of
    all citizens to affect the outcome of elections as additional
    justification for the Proposition A limits. This latter interest
    is close to running afoul of the Court's statement in 
    Buckley, 424 U.S. at 48-49
    , that restricting "the speech of some elements of our
    society in order to enhance the relative voice of others is wholly
    foreign to the First Amendment . . . ." See also Shrink Mo. Gov't
    PAC, No. 95-2857, slip op. at 8-9. In addition, ACORN states that
    supporters of Proposition A sought to change the nature of local
    campaigns away from "hot button sound bites" in thirty-second
    television commercials toward a substantive discussion of the
    issues. As laudable as this interest may appear, these comments,
    on their face, manifest a content based restriction on expression
    and association. See Turner Broadcasting 
    Sys., 114 S. Ct. at 2459
    (discussing content based restrictions).
    -13-
    III.
    A.
    Our review of the district court's factual findings in this First
    Amendment case is governed by the Supreme Court's recent decision of Hurley
    v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, 
    115 S. Ct. 2338
    (1995).       The Court instructed that, when considering whether the
    petitioners' activity is protected speech, we have "a constitutional duty
    to conduct an independent examination of the record as a whole, without
    deference to the trial court."           
    Id. at 2344
    (quoting Bose Corp. v.
    Consumers Union of United States, Inc., 
    466 U.S. 485
    , 499 (1984)).                  The
    Court explained:
    The requirement of independent appellate review is a rule of
    federal constitutional law . . . . [T]he reaches of the First
    Amendment are ultimately defined by the facts it is held to
    embrace, and we must thus decide for ourselves whether a given
    course of conduct falls on the near or far side of the line of
    constitutional protection.     Even where a speech case has
    originally been tried in a federal court, subject to the
    provision of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a) that
    findings of fact shall not be set aside unless clearly
    erroneous, we are obliged to make a fresh examination of
    crucial facts.
    
    Id. (citations and
      quotations    omitted).      Hurley   requires     that    we
    independently review the facts to decide whether certain conduct is
    entitled to First Amendment protection.         The factual findings surrounding
    the determination of whether the Proposition A limits unconstitutionally
    interfere   with    Carver's   free    speech   and   association   rights    are    so
    intermingled with the constitutional questions of law that we are obligated
    "to make an independent examination of the whole record . . . ."                    
    Id. (quoting New
    York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 
    376 U.S. 254
    , 285 (1964)).
    -14-
    B.
    In     considering      Carver's    argument     that   "the    limits    imposed   by
    Proposition A are so low as to be an unconstitutional restriction of First
    Amendment     rights    of    speech    and    association,"        the   district    court
    acknowledged that "what determines the constitutionality of the limits is
    the dollar amount of the limits."                  
    Carver, 882 F. Supp. at 904
    -05.
    Comparing the $1,000 limit on contributions to candidates for federal
    offices in Buckley with the Proposition A limits, the court emphasized the
    incremental nature of the Proposition A limits, which vary according to
    population and the office being sought.7            
    Id. at 905.
         The court concluded
    that "[t]he stairstepping of the contribution limits demonstrates a more
    narrow tailoring of Proposition A to fit the state's goal."                   
    Id. The district
    court observed that there was no evidence that the
    Proposition    A   limits     would    dramatically    affect      campaign    funding   or
    candidates' ability to communicate to the voters.                  
    Id. The court
    relied
    on the fact that twenty-seven states and the federal government have
    imposed contribution limits, and that an overwhelming seventy-four percent
    of Missouri voters "determined that contribution limits are necessary to
    combat corruption and the appearance thereof."               
    Id. The court
    found that
    "Proposition A does not favor incumbents and that many challengers welcome
    limits on contributions as a way to stop incumbents from accepting large
    contributions."        
    Id. Finally, the
    district court referred to expert
    testimony indicating that more people will contribute to campaigns when
    contribution limits are in place, because people feel that the candidates
    will appreciate and be more responsive to smaller contributors.                      
    Id. at 905-06.
    7
    The Proposition A limits stand alone, as Missouri does not
    provide public funds for campaign purposes, unlike the United
    States and a number of other states.
    -15-
    These findings may address the desirability of campaign contribution
    limits, but they do not focus on whether the Proposition A limits are
    narrowly tailored to address the reality or appearance of corruption
    associated with large contributions.      While indicating popular sentiment
    in favor of campaign finance reform, the fact that seventy-four percent of
    the voters approved Proposition A does not assist our analysis, because
    voters may not adopt an unconstitutional law any more than the legislature.
    Citizens Against Rent 
    Control, 454 U.S. at 295
    ; see also U.S. Term Limits,
    Inc. v. Thornton, 
    115 S. Ct. 1842
    , 1871 (1995) (holding unconstitutional
    congressional term limits adopted by voter initiative).
    The district court's discussion shows the district court posed, but
    did not answer, the question of whether the contribution limits were too
    low.    Instead, the court only concluded that the stairstepping of the
    limits demonstrated that the limits were narrowly tailored.    The fact that
    Proposition A sets forth graduated limits has nothing to do with whether
    the limits are so low as to be unconstitutional.
    C.
    Carver argues that the evidence establishes that the limits in
    Proposition A violate his right to associate as a contributor.     The State
    responds that Carver has not proved that Proposition A limits his right to
    contribute at a meaningful level.   The State contends that the Proposition
    A limits do not prevent Carver from effectively speaking on behalf of a
    candidate or joining with other individuals to express themselves in
    constitutionally protected independent committees, such as those involved
    in Day v. Holahan, 
    34 F.3d 1356
    (8th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 
    115 S. Ct. 936
    (1995).    The State argues that there was no proof that contributors
    like Carver could not find other outlets for effectively expressing their
    message in Missouri elections.
    -16-
    While the extent of Carver's testimony is at best skeletal, it is
    sufficient to demonstrate that Carver has contributed, and intends to
    contribute in the future, amounts in excess of the Proposition A limits to
    support his interest in "good candidates" and "good government."                 The
    State's argument that Carver could continue to exercise his First Amendment
    rights by joining an independent group does not address whether the limits
    are so low as to prevent Carver from freely associating with a candidate.
    The State points out that Buckley does not require specific proof of
    the maximum contribution limit, and that we may not use "a scalpel" to
    invalidate Proposition A.     It is true that the Court did not analyze the
    propriety of the $1,000 limit.            Indeed, the Court observed that while
    Congress could have structured the limits in a graduated fashion for
    congressional and presidential campaigns, its failure to do so did not
    invalidate the legislation.       
    Buckley, 424 U.S. at 30
    .     The Court reiterated
    the court of appeals' statement that "a court has no scalpel to probe"
    whether a different ceiling might not serve as well.             
    Id. Although we
    certainly are not free to fine tune the limits established by Proposition
    A, and we generally accept the limits established by the legislature,
    Buckley   instructs   that   we    must    invalidate   that   judgment   when   the
    "distinctions in degree" become "differences in kind."            
    Id. The Court
    in 
    Buckley, 424 U.S. at 30
    , pointed to two decisions,
    Kusper v. Pontikes, 
    414 U.S. 51
    (1973), and Rosario v. Rockefeller, 
    410 U.S. 752
    (1973), as illustrating differences in kind.          In 
    Rosario, 410 U.S. at 754
    , the Court approved a party enrollment provision requiring a voter
    to enroll in a party at least thirty days before the general election in
    order to vote in the next party primary.         The Court held that, although the
    cutoff date for enrollment could occur up to eight months before a
    presidential primary, and up to eleven months before a nonpresidential
    primary, the requirement was not arbitrary and
    -17-
    unconnected to the important state goal of inhibiting party raiding.              
    Id. at 760.
    The Court, however, struck down a party enrollment requirement in
    
    Kusper, 414 U.S. at 52
    , which prohibited a voter from voting in the primary
    election of a political party if he had voted in the primary of another
    party in the preceding twenty-three months.              The Court reaffirmed its
    decision in Rosario, but held that the enrollment requirement at issue
    caused a two-year delay for certain voters, and thus, violated the voter's
    right to free political association.           
    Id. at 61.
        Although the Court
    allowed an eight-month delay in Rosario, the almost two-year delay in
    Kusper, nearly three times the delay approved in Rosario, crossed the
    constitutional line.   Thus, the enrollment requirement in Kusper amounted
    to a "difference in kind."
    Similarly, in 
    Day, 34 F.3d at 1365
    , we dealt with the issues raised
    by very low contribution limits.       We considered the constitutionality of
    a Minnesota statute imposing a $100 limit on contributions to political
    committees.    Although    Day   did   not    consider    contribution   limits    to
    candidates, we compared the $100 limit on contributions to political
    committees in Day to the $1,000 limit on contributions to candidates
    considered in Buckley.    
    Day, 34 F.3d at 1366
    .      After recognizing that the
    $1,000 limit in Buckley was not a "constitutional minimum," we nevertheless
    concluded that the $100 limit significantly impaired the ability of
    contributors to exercise their First Amendment rights.          
    Id. We held
    that
    the limit was "too low to allow meaningful participation in protected
    political speech and association," and we concluded that the law was "not
    narrowly tailored to serve the state's legitimate interest in protecting
    the integrity of the political system."       
    Id. In reaching
    this conclusion,
    we relied on the fact that about 25 to 33 percent of the contributions to
    political committees in the most recent election exceeded the $100 limit,
    and that after adjusting for inflation, the limit was about 4 percent
    -18-
    of the $1,000 limit in Buckley.         
    Id. Our observation
    in Day about the
    effect of inflation applies with equal force in this case.
    The district court referred to the fact that twenty-seven states have
    contribution limits, but it did not analyze the limits in detail.           Any
    meaningful comparison of these limits must include consideration of not
    only the amount, but also whether the limits are per election cycle or per
    election.       The Proposition A limits, ranging from $100 to $300 per election
    cycle, are dramatically lower than the $2,000 limit per election cycle
    approved in Buckley.8        Not only are the Proposition A limits much lower
    than the federal limits, they are lower than the limits in any other state.
    Two states, Montana and Oregon, have limits for state senate races that
    equal those in Proposition A, but their limits for statewide offices and
    state representatives are greater than those in Missouri.9
    8
    Employing our analysis in Day, the amicus brief of the
    American Civil Liberties Union points out that after adjusting for
    inflation, Proposition A's $300 limit is 6 percent of the limit per
    election cycle considered in Buckley, the $200 limit is 4 percent
    of the Buckley limit per election cycle, and the $100 limit is only
    2 percent of the Buckley limit per election cycle.
    9
    Montana and Oregon recently adopted these restrictive
    contribution limits by initiative. See Mont. Code Ann. § 13-37-216
    (Supp. 1995); 1995 Or. Laws 1, 3. The Montana limits are on a per
    election basis, but when they are converted to an election cycle
    basis, the limits are: (1) $800 to candidates filed jointly for
    the office of Governor and Lieutenant Governor, (2) $400 to
    candidates in a statewide election other than Governor and
    Lieutenant Governor, and (3) $200 to candidates for any other
    public office.    Mont. Code Ann. § 13-37-216.      When similarly
    considered, the Oregon limits are: (1) $1,000 to a candidate for
    "Governor, Secretary of State, State Treasurer, Superintendent of
    Public Instruction, Attorney General, Commissioner of the Bureau of
    Labor and Industries or judge of the Supreme Court, Court of
    Appeals or Oregon Tax Court" and (2) $200 to a candidate for State
    Senator or State Representative. 1995 Or. Laws 3.
    -19-
    The question thus becomes whether Missouri must adopt the lowest
    contribution limits in the nation to remedy the corruption caused by large
    campaign contributions.     The State presented testimony at trial about a
    $420,000 contribution from a Morgan Stanley political action committee to
    various races in north Missouri, and about the "Keating Five" scandal.10
    None of these examples prove that the Proposition A limits are
    narrowly tailored.    A $420,000 contribution is a far cry from the limits
    in Proposition A, and the other examples involve individual conduct leading
    to criminal prosecution.   We cannot conclude that the limits in Proposition
    A are in any way narrowly tailored or carefully drawn to remedy such
    situations.    See Massachusetts Citizens for 
    Life, 479 U.S. at 265
    (we may
    "curtail speech only to the degree necessary to meet the particular problem
    at hand"); 
    Day, 34 F.3d at 1366
    .
    In    considering   whether   the   Proposition   A   limits   are   narrowly
    tailored, we must also recognize that the limits were not adopted in a
    vacuum.    The question is not simply that of some limits or none at all, but
    rather Proposition A as compared to those in Senate Bill 650, which was to
    become effective January 1, 1995.
    10
    The ACORN amicus brief also argues that the Proposition A
    limits are necessary and narrowly tailored, citing the Dewey Crump
    and William Webster scandals. Dewey Crump was a Missouri State
    Representative accused of sponsoring legislation in exchange for
    kickbacks. William Webster was Missouri's Attorney General who
    pleaded guilty to a charge of conspiracy to misuse state property.
    -20-
    The Proposition A limits are only ten to twenty percent of the higher
    limits in Senate Bill 650.11   The State produced no evidence as to why the
    Proposition A limits of $100, $200, and $300 were selected.   Further, the
    State presented no evidence to demonstrate that the limits were narrowly
    tailored to combat corruption or the appearance of corruption associated
    with large campaign contributions.      See 
    Buckley, 424 U.S. at 25
    .    The
    record is barren of any evidence of a harm or disease that needed to be
    addressed between the limits of Senate Bill 650 and those enacted in
    Proposition A.   See National Treasury Employees 
    Union, 115 S. Ct. at 1017
    .
    11
    On an election cycle basis, the contribution limits contained
    in Proposition A and Senate Bill 650 compare as follows:
    Percentage
    Senate      Proposition    of Senate
    Office                 Bill 650          A         Bill 650
    Statewide Races                   $2,000a         $300b          15%
    c          d
    State Senator                     $1,000          $200           20%
    State Representative               $500e          $100f          20%
    Other Races:
    Less Than 100,000 Pop.           $500g          $100h          20%
    100,000 to 250,000 Pop.      $1,000i     $200j          20%
    k         l
    More Than 250,000 Pop.       $2,000      $200           10%
    a
    Mo. Rev. Stat. § 130.032.1(1).
    b
    Mo. Ann. Stat. § 130.100(3).
    c
    Mo. Rev. Stat. § 130.032.1(2).
    d
    Mo. Ann. Stat. § 130.100(2). Missouri State Senate
    districts consist of approximately 150,000 people.
    1995-96 State of Missouri Official Manual, at 123.
    e
    Mo. Rev. Stat. § 130.032.1(3).
    f
    Mo. Ann. Stat. § 130.100(1)(a).    Missouri State
    Representative districts consist of approximately 30,000-
    33,000 people.      1995-96 State of Missouri Official
    Manual, at 184-85.
    g
    Mo. Rev. Stat. § 130.032.1(4).
    h
    Mo. Ann. Stat. § 130.100(1)(a).
    i
    Mo. Rev. Stat. § 130.032.1(5).
    j
    Mo. Ann. Stat. § 130.100(2).
    k
    Mo. Rev. Stat. § 130.032.1(6).
    l
    Mo. Ann. Stat. § 130.100(2).
    -21-
    In ruling that the contribution limits in Buckley were narrowly
    tailored, the Supreme Court pointed out that only about five percent of the
    contributors in the 1974 election gave more than the $1,000 limit.
    
    Buckley, 424 U.S. at 21
    n.23.        The State's own evidence shows that a much
    higher percentage of contributors will be impacted by the limits in
    Proposition     A.     At   trial,    the   State   presented   exhibits   showing
    contributions made in past races for Auditor, State Senate and State
    Representative.12    According to the State's exhibits, in the 1994 Auditor's
    race, 19.5 percent of the contributors gave more than the $300 Proposition
    A limit, but less than the $1,000 Senate Bill 650 limit.13          In the State
    Senate race, 21.6 percent of the contributors gave more than the $200
    Proposition A limit, but less than the $1,000 Senate Bill 650 limit on an
    election cycle basis.14     In the State Representative race, 19.0 percent of
    the contributors gave more than the $100
    12
    The races were (1) the 1994 State Auditor's race, (2) the
    1992 Twenty-Seventh District State Senate race, and (3) the 1992
    Tenth District Missouri House of Representatives race. The State
    selected these sample races because they were among the races with
    the highest contributions.
    13
    19.5 percent is actually too low because the State's exhibit
    is based on the $1,000 per election limit in Senate Bill 650, and
    not the $2,000 limit per election cycle.       The State's exhibit
    failed to show the actual number of contributors giving more than
    the $300 Proposition A limit but less than the $2,000 election
    cycle limit in Senate Bill 650. The State's exhibit showed that
    19.5 percent of the contributions were between $301 and $1,000, and
    8.0 percent were more than $1,000. The exhibit does not indicate
    what percent of the contributions over $1,000 should also be
    included as being within the $2,000 Senate Bill 650 election cycle
    limit. While the percentage is undoubtedly higher than the 19.5
    percent set out above, the precise amount is not shown.
    14
    This is the only race where the exact percentage of
    contributors giving more than the Proposition A limit but less than
    the Senate Bill 650 limit on an election cycle basis may be
    determined from the data presented by the State.
    -22-
    Proposition A limit, but less than the $250 Senate Bill 650 limit.15
    Further,         the    State's    exhibits    show     that   27.5   percent      of   the
    contributors in the 1994 Auditor's race gave more than the $300 Proposition
    A limits.       In the State Senate race, 23.7 percent of the contributors gave
    more   than       the    $200    Proposition    A     limit.      Finally,    in    the    State
    Representative race, 35.6 percent of the contributors gave more than the
    $100 Proposition A limit.
    The State made no showing as to why it was necessary to adopt the
    lowest contribution limits in the nation and restrict the First Amendment
    rights of so many contributors in order to prevent corruption or the
    appearance of corruption associated with large campaign contributions.
    Proposition A substantially limits Carver's ability to contribute to
    candidates and will have a considerable impact on many contributors besides
    Carver.        The State simply argues that limits which are nearly four times
    as restrictive as the limits approved in Buckley are narrowly tailored.
    The State argues we may not fine tune the specific dollar amount of the
    limits, but fails to demonstrate that the Proposition A limits are not a
    "difference in kind."                  See 
    Kusper, 414 U.S. at 61
    (overturning an
    enrollment requirement approximately three times longer than that approved
    by the Court in Rosario).              We hold that the Proposition A limits amount to
    a difference in kind from the limits in Buckley.                        The limits are not
    closely        drawn    to    reduce   corruption     or   the   appearance    of   corruption
    associated with
    15
    Again, the State's calculation is based on the $250 per
    election limit in Senate Bill 650, and not on the $500 limit per
    election cycle. The State's exhibit showed that 19.0 percent of
    the contributions were between $101 and $250, 15.7 percent were
    between $251 an $1,000, and 0.9% were more than $1,000. We have no
    way of knowing what portion of the contributions between $251 and
    $1,000 fell below the $500 limit per election cycle. Undoubtedly,
    some of these contributions should be included as between the
    Proposition A and Senate Bill 650 limits.
    -23-
    large campaign contributions.        Thus, the State has failed to carry its
    burden of demonstrating that Proposition A will alleviate the harms in a
    direct and material way, Turner Broadcasting 
    System, 114 S. Ct. at 2470
    ,
    or is closely drawn to avoid unnecessary abridgement of associational
    freedoms, 
    Buckley, 424 U.S. at 25
    .           Accordingly, we conclude that the
    Proposition A contribution limits unconstitutionally burden the First
    Amendment rights of association and expression.
    IV.
    The State argues from Turner Broadcasting 
    System, 114 S. Ct. at 2471
    ,
    that we "must accord substantial deference to the predictive judgments" of
    the   legislature.     The   Court    explained   the   deference   accorded   to
    congressional action is limited to assuring that "in formulating its
    judgments, Congress has drawn reasonable inferences based on substantial
    evidence."   
    Id. The State
    argues that we must accord this same deference
    to Proposition A adopted through the initiative process by the citizens of
    Missouri.
    There are two obstacles in the path of the State's argument.        First,
    as we have observed before, the voters may no more violate the Constitution
    than the legislature.     Citizens Against Rent 
    Control, 454 U.S. at 295
    .
    Second, the deference to legislative enactments recognized in Turner
    Broadcasting 
    System, 114 S. Ct. at 2471
    , requires that courts ascertain
    that the legislative body "has drawn reasonable inferences based on
    substantial evidence."
    There is simply no evidence in the record identifying the source of
    Proposition A, whether it was an individual or group,16
    16
    Only the amicus briefs identify the sponsors and participants
    in the initiative campaign for Proposition A.        These include
    Missourians for Campaign Finance Reform, a coalition composed of
    the Missouri Public Interest Research Group, ACORN, the Missouri
    League of Women Voters, and United We Stand - Missouri.
    -24-
    the process of its development, nor the reasons for the particular dollar
    limits.17     Further, there is no evidence of the details of the campaign
    waged in support of the initiative.            There is, simply put, a failure of
    proof as to any of the facts Turner Broadcasting System would require that
    we consider to justify according deference.
    Whether the deference Turner Broadcasting System requires for acts
    of Congress extends to the acts of the state legislative body is an issue
    not   before     us    to   decide.     Legislative      bodies   consist     of    elected
    representatives sworn to be bound by the United States Constitution, and
    their legislative product is subject to veto by the elected executive,
    either President or Governor.         The process of enactment, while perhaps not
    always perfect, includes deliberation and an opportunity for compromise and
    amendment,18     and   usually   committee     studies    and   hearings.      These    are
    substantial reasons for according deference to legislative enactments that
    do not exist with respect to proposals adopted by initiative.                       On the
    evidentiary      showing    before    us,   there   is   no   justification    to    accord
    Proposition A the deference that Turner Broadcasting System requires for
    congressional action.        See Yniguez v. Arizonans for Official English, Nos.
    92-17087, 93-15061, 93-15719, 
    1995 WL 583414
    , at *21 (9th Cir. Oct. 5,
    1995) (en banc) (noting ballot initiative lacked legislative findings and
    was not subjected to extensive hearings or analysis).
    17
    Proposition A differs from the initiative procedures in some
    states, which either require or permit the ballot materials
    describing the proposition to include a statement of the purposes
    and reasons for the enactment. There was no such statement with
    respect to Proposition A.
    18
    Indeed the process of enactment of Senate Bill 650
    demonstrates the back and forth action of both the House and the
    Senate, and considerable effort to achieve a conference substitute
    agreeable to both bodies.
    -25-
    V.
    In conclusion, we hold that the campaign contribution limits in
    Proposition A, Mo. Ann. Stat. § 130.100, are not narrowly tailored to meet
    the compelling state interest of limiting the influence of corruption
    associated    with     large   campaign    contributions,   and   is,   therefore,
    unconstitutional.      We reverse the decision of the district court and remand
    the case to the district court for the entry of judgment permanently
    enjoining the State and the Missouri Ethics Commission from implementing,
    enforcing, or acting in reliance upon section 130.100.
    A true copy.
    Attest:
    CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
    -26-