Moving Oxnard Forward, Inc. v. Lourdes Lopez, City Clerk for the City of Oxnard, California

Randall v. Sorrell recognized that campaigncontribution limits have a constitutional “lower bound,” below which “the constitutional risks to the democratic electoral process become too great,” but did not locate it. 548 U.S. 230, 248–49 (2006) (plurality opinion). Twenty years later that bound remains undefined, and this Court has never upheld a limit below $1,000. The court of appeals upheld a $500 per-election limit on contributions to Oxnard city council candidates. In conducting Randall’s independent review, it held that “[t]he final consideration, the presence of a special justification, is irrelevant” because the other considerations favored the City. Applying circuit precedent, it also held that the City need show only that a perceived threat of corruption is “not illusory.” Yet this Court requires “record evidence or legislative findings,” not the bare positing of “the existence of the disease sought to be cured.” FEC v. Ted Cruz for Senate, 596 U.S. 289, 307 (2022). The decision below rests on Buckley v. Valeo’s premise that a contribution limit restricts the contributor and so warrants lesser review. 424 U.S. 1, 20–21 (1976). This Court has never decided what standard governs restrictions on what political candidates may solicit. The questions presented are:

1. Whether a court conducting the independent review Randall requires may hold that the fifth consideration — whether any special justification warrants a contribution limit so low — is “irrelevant” because the other four considerations favor the government.

2. Whether a government may justify a limit on campaign contributions on an initial showing only that a perceived threat of quid pro quo corruption is “not illusory” and “more than mere conjecture,” when this Court has declined to define the minimum showing and has held that the required quantum of evidence must vary with the plausibility of the government’s justification.

3. Whether a limit on what a candidate may solicit or accept for the candidate’s campaign is a restriction on the candidate’s own speech subject to strict scrutiny, and whether Buckley v. Valeo’s “closely drawn” standard should be overruled to the extent that it governs such a limit.