Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals Upholds North Carolina Ban on Contributions from Lobbyists in Breakthrough Victory for Supporters of Strong Campaign Finance Laws

In a landmark decision, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld North Carolina’s ban on campaign contributions from lobbyists to candidates for the North Carolina General Assembly or the Council of State.

The contribution ban, upheld in Preston v. Leake, appears to be the toughest restriction on campaign giving by lobbyists in the country.

The Fourth Circuit concluded regarding the contribution ban:

We conclude that this Prohibition is appropriately tailored to address North Carolina’s recent problems with corruption and to reassure its citizens that its politicians are acting on their behalf and not on behalf of the highest bidder.

The Court further stated:

Rather than presenting a "risk[ ] to the democratic electoral process," see Randall, 548 U.S. at 248, prohibiting a financial relationship between lobbyists and candidates protects that process from actual corruption or the appearance of corruption—precisely the interests North Carolina has sought to protect.

The decision in the Leake case is a tremendous victory for supporters of strong campaign finance laws necessary to prevent corruption.

The decision recognizes that lobbyists are in the business of influencing government decisions and that the campaign contributions they make cannot be separated from their efforts to obtain government influence and decisions.

The statutory ban and the Fourth circuit decision upholding the ban do not represent an attack on the role of lobbyists in our political system but rather on the use of campaign contributions by lobbyists as an improper vehicle for obtaining government influence and results.

As the Fourth Circuit stated:

At bottom, North Carolina’s Campaign Contributions Prohibition is designed to prohibit only contributions having monetary value and then only when made by a lobbyist to a candidate. The lobbyist is left free to pursue any other First Amendment activity to express actual or symbolic support of a candidate, so long as that activity does not involve making a contribution having monetary value to the candidate or the candidate’s campaign.

In reaching its decision, the Fourth Circuit recognized that the Supreme Court less than a decade ago upheld the constitutionality of the ban on corporate contributions to federal candidates in the Beaumont case (2003). In the Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United (2010) case, the Court made clear that its decision striking the ban on corporate spending in federal elections applied only to the spending ban and did not apply to the corporate contribution ban.