Moving Oxnard Forward, Inc., a political advocacy nonprofit, challenged the constitutionality of the Oxnard Government Accountability and Ethics Act, known as Measure B. Measure B was approved by 82% of Oxnard voters in 2020 to address a history of political scandals involving City officials accepting gifts and travel from businesses seeking city contracts. The measure established per-candidate contribution limits of $500 for district races and $750 for citywide races, along with aggregate limits. The plaintiff argued these limits violated the First Amendment by restricting free speech and association. The district court granted summary judgment for the City, finding the limits constitutional. The case was heard en banc by the Ninth Circuit.
The en banc court applied the two-part test established in Buckley v. Valeo and Randall v. Sorrell. First, the court determined the City had a sufficiently important governmental interest in preventing quid pro quo corruption or its appearance. Relying on the low evidentiary bar from Lair v. Motl, the court found the City met this burden with evidence including a District Attorney report detailing instances of officials receiving gifts and travel in exchange for official actions, a newspaper article alleging corruption, and a resident survey showing 77% support for accountability measures. Second, the court assessed whether the limits were 'closely drawn' to that interest. The court found that three of the four 'danger signs' from Randall were absent: the limits were per election rather than per cycle, they did not apply to political parties, and they were comparable to limits in other cities of similar size. Although the court assumed the fourth danger sign was present, it conducted an independent review of five considerations. It found that the limits did not significantly restrict competitive campaigns, did not limit party contributions, exempted volunteer services, and were adjusted for inflation. Consequently, the court held the limits were constitutional. The court also addressed aggregate limits, ruling they applied only to contributions to the candidate and not to ballot measure committees, thus avoiding discrimination issues.
The decision affirms the enforceability of the Oxnard Government Accountability and Ethics Act's campaign contribution limits. The City may continue to enforce the $500 and $750 per-candidate limits and the associated aggregate limits. The ruling clarifies that local governments can rely on evidence of general corruption scandals and voter sentiment to establish an interest in preventing corruption, without needing specific evidence of quid pro quo arrangements in campaign contributions. It also confirms that contribution limits comparable to other municipalities are likely constitutional even if they are lower than federal limits. The unresolved question remains whether the 'danger signs' analysis can be expanded to include allegations of invidious discrimination against specific challengers, as the majority rejected this while the dissent embraced it.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download