034077P.pdf   11/04/2005  MN Citizens  v.  Doug Kelley
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  03-4077
   District of Minnesota   
   [PUBLISHED] [Benton, Author, with Colloton and Lay, Circuit Judges] 
   Civil case - Campaign Finance. Plaintiffs, two pro-life organizations 
   and an unsuccessful candidate for state senate, challenge the 
   constitutionality of three Minnesota campaign finance laws. Held: (1) 
   based on the Minnesota Supreme Court's decision in Minnesota 
   Concerned Citizens for Life v. Kelly, 698 N.W. 2d 424 (Minn. 2005) 
   which held that Minn. Stat. Sec. 10A.01, subds. 27 and 28, may be 
   narrowly construed so that the statute does not apply to groups that 
   engage only in pure issue advocacy, Minnesota Concerned Citizens, 
   which engages in such advocacy, does not have standing to challenge the 
   statute's definitions of political committee and political fund; (2) as 
   interpreted by the Minnesota Campaign Finance and Disclosure Board, 
   Minn. Stat. Sec. 10A.04, subdivision 4(d), concerning lobbyist reporting 
   is not unconstitutionally vague and does not infringe on contributors' 
   rights to free speech and association with an advocacy organization; (3) 
   Section 10A.27, subdivision 9, barring the transfer of funds between 
   candidates' political committees has been narrowly drawn to match the 
   state's important interest in avoiding corruption and is constitutional; (4) 
   Section 10A.27, subdivision 1, setting different contribution limits for 
   election and non-election years does not discriminate against challengers 
   as a class and is constitutional; (5) Section 10A. 27, subdivision 11, 
   setting aggregate limits on certain types of contributions is also narrowly 
   drawn to match the state's interests in preventing corruption and in 
   building public confidence in elections and is constitutional; (6) Section 
   211B.108 prohibiting religious, charitable or educational organizations 
   from requesting donations from candidates or committees is not narrowly 
   tailored and is unconstitutional.