United states court of appeals for the second circuit

in any fund-raising activities for a candidate committee, exploratory

committee, political committee or party committee, including, but not limited

to, forwarding tickets to potential contributors, receiving contributions for

transmission to any such committee or bundling contributions, (C) serving as

chairperson, treasurer or deputy treasurer of any such committee, or (D)

establishing a political committee for the sole purpose of soliciting or

receiving contributions for any committee. “Solicit” does not include

(i) making a contribution that is otherwise permitted under this chapter, (ii)

informing any person of a position taken by a candidate for public office or a

public official, (iii) notifying the person of any activities of, or contact

information for, any candidate for public office, or (iv) serving as a member

in any party committee or as an officer of such committee that is not

otherwise prohibited in this subdivision.

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9-601(26).

9

The CFRA is administered and interpreted by a state agency known as the State Elections

Enforcement Commission (SEEC).  The SEEC has issued a “declaratory ruling” that clarifies the

scope of the CFRA’s solicitation ban.  According to the SEEC, a contractor or lobbyist may,

consistent with the CFRA’s solicitation ban, engage in a number of political activities; for example, a

contractor or lobbyist may “[v]olunteer for a . . . candidate’s political campaign,” “[e]xpress support

for a candidate,” “[r]un for office,” or “[b]e the spouse or dependent child of someone running for

office.”  Green Party I, 590 F. Supp. 2d at 298 (quoting SEEC Declaratory Ruling 2006-1, at 5-6).

III.

This Action

Plaintiffs-appellants (“plaintiffs”) brought this action in 2006 claiming that certain provisions

of the CFRA violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. 

Plaintiffs also claimed that the challenged provisions violated the Connecticut Constitution.  

A. The 

Parties

We described the parties to this action in our first opinion:

Plaintiffs include two minor parties operating in Connecticut: the

Green Party of Connecticut and the Libertarian Party of Connecticut. 

Plaintiffs also include several Connecticut-based lobbyists and state

---

  Citations to the “Complaint” are to the amended complaint filed by the Green Party of

8

Connecticut and others on September 29, 2006.

 As we noted in our first opinion, there are two operative complaints in this action: (1) an

9

“amended complaint” filed by the Green Party of Connecticut and others on September 29, 2006,

and (2) a “second amended complaint” filed by the Association of Connecticut Lobbyists and Barry

Williams on January 16, 2007.  In discussing the various “counts” asserted by plaintiffs, we refer to

the counts contained in the complaint filed by the Green Party on September 29, 2006.  See note 8,

ante.  Count Four of the Green Party’s complaint is, for all relevant purposes, identical to the claims

raised in the complaint filed by the Association of Connecticut Lobbyists.  

10

contractors . . . .  See Green Party II, 648 F. Supp. 2d at 302-06; J.A. [No. 09-

3760-cv(L)] 49-52 (Compl. ¶¶ 10-17).

8

Defendants-[appellees] (“defendants”) include Jeffrey Garfield, who

is named in his official capacity as the Executive Director and General

Counsel of the State Elections Enforcement Commission, and Richard

Blumenthal, who is named in his official capacity as the Attorney General of

the State of Connecticut.  See Green Party II, 648 F. Supp. 2d at 306; J.A. [No.

09-3760-cv(L)] 52 (Compl. ¶¶ 18-19).

The parties in this action also include several individuals and entities

who successfully moved to intervene as defendants.  The intervenor-

defendants-appellants include three former major-party candidates for state

office and two advocacy groups: Connecticut Common Cause and

Connecticut Citizens Action Group.  See Green Party II, 648 F. Supp. 2d at

306.  The intervenor-defendants defend the constitutionality of the

[challenged provisions of the CFRA].

Green Party, No. 09-3760-cv(L), at __ , __ F.3d at __ .

B.

The Claims

We also described plaintiffs’ claims in our first opinion:

Plaintiffs have organized their claims into five counts.   In Count

9

One, plaintiffs claim that the CEP’s qualification criteria and distribution

formulae, Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 9-702(b), 704-05, violate the First Amendment

and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by

invidiously “discriminat[ing]” against minor parties and their candidates.  See

J.A. 66 [No. 09-3760-cv(L)] (Compl. ¶ 53).  In Counts Two and Three,

plaintiffs assert First Amendment challenges to the CEP’s excess expenditure

provision, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9-713 (Count Two), and the CEP’s

independent expenditure provision, id. § 9-714 (Count Three).  See J.A. [No.

09-3760-cv(L)] 66-67 (Compl. ¶¶ 54-55).

---

11

In Counts Four and Five, plaintiffs assert First Amendment

challenges to aspects of the CFRA that do not involve the CEP.  In Count

Four, plaintiffs challenge the CFRA’s bans on contributions (and the

solicitation of contributions) by registered lobbyists, state contractors, and

their families.  Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 9-610(g)(h), 9-612(g).  In Count Five,

plaintiffs challenge disclosure requirements imposed by the CFRA on state

contractors.  Id. § 9-612(h)(2); see J.A. 67 (Compl. ¶¶ 56-57).

Green Party, No. 09-3760-cv(L), at __ , __ F.3d at __ .

Our first opinion addresses Counts One, Two, and Three.  This opinion addresses Count

Four.  Plaintiffs have not pursued Count Five in these appeals; thus we do not address it.

C.

Proceedings in the District Court

The District Court disposed of plaintiffs’ claims by means of two separate judgments.  First,

following cross-motions for summary judgment, the Court granted summary judgment to

defendants on Count Four, holding that the CFRA’s contribution and solicitation bans did not

violate the First Amendment.  See Green Party I, 590 F. Supp. 2d 288.  The Court evaluated each of

the challenged provisions under the so-called “closely drawn” standard, see Fed. Election Comm’n v.

Beaumont, 539 U.S. 146, 162 (2003), and held that in light of Connecticut’s recent corruption

scandals, each aspect of the contribution and solicitation bans were “closely drawn to the state’s

sufficiently important state interest of preventing actual and perceived corruption,” Green Party I, 590

F. Supp. 2d at 294.  

On February 11, 2009, the District Court entered a partial final judgment for defendants

with respect to Count Four.  See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b).  Plaintiffs filed a timely appeal of that partial

final judgment, which we address in this opinion.

The Court then held a bench trial and, on September 2, 2009, entered a judgment in

plaintiffs’ favor with respect to Counts One, Two, and Three.  See Green Party of Conn. v. Garfield

(“Green Party II”), 648 F. Supp. 2d 298 (D. Conn. 2009).  Defendants filed a timely appeal of the

---