8th Circ upholds most of Minnesota campaign finance law against challenge from anti-abortion interest groups and affiliated political candidates; only measure the 8th Circ finds unconstituional was limits on advocacy groups' soliciting funds from political candidates 11/04/05 MN Citizens v. Doug Kelley Case No. 03-4077 District of Minnesota Two pro-life organizations and an unsuccessful candidate for state senate challenge the constitutionality of several Minnesota campaign finance laws. Asrelevant here, Minnesota requires registration with the Campaign Finance andDisclosure Board by all organizations that accept or spend money "to influence," orwhose major purpose is "to influence," the nomination or election of a specificcandidate.On summary judgment, the district court found these statutes constitutional. Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, Inc. v. Kelley, 291 F. Supp. 2d 1052 (D. Minn. 2003). The challengers appeal.Jurisdiction being proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms in part,reverses in part, and remands. From a certified question to the Minnesota Supreme Court, that court held the campaign finance laws applied to advocacy groups who called for the election or defeat of specific candiates or ballot measures "the phrase "to influence the nomination or election of a candidate or to promote or defeat a ballot question" applies only to expressly advocate the nomination or election of a particular candidate or the promotion or defeat of a ballot question. Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, Inc. v. Kelley, 698 N.W.2d 424, 430 (Minn. 2005). ... Limitations on the percentage of campaign contributions that a candidate may receive from PACs upheld, as were reporting requirements that certain expenditures for lobbying trigger ... The 8th Circuit does find limitations on advocacy groups' soliciting contributions from candidates however unconstitutional restrictions and associationThe First Amendment protects charitable solicitations, subjecting section 211B.08 to exacting scrutiny. Riley v. Nat'l Fed'n of the Blind, 487 U.S. 781, 788-89 (1988). The state may regulate charitable solicitations directly and substantiallyif the law serves a "sufficiently strong, subordinating [State] interest . . . and isnarrowly drawn to serve that interest without unnecessarily interfering with FirstAmendment freedoms." National Fed'n of the Blind v. Pryor, 258 F.3d 851, 854-55(8th Cir. 2001)...MCCL wants to solicit contributions from the 162 legislative candidates who previously responded to its questionnaire in agreement with MCCL’s positionon issues, but have never contributed to MCCL. Also, MCCL regularly makesgeneral appeals – such as those in MCCL’s monthly News – that may reach acandidate or committee. Section 211B.08 bans such requests for any amount even when the organization has no knowledge that the prospective donor is a candidate or committee, or the solicitation otherwise has no potential to affect voting behavior. In sum, (the restrictions on solicitation of funds from candiates) bars requests that have nothing to do with preventing corruption, or the appearance of corruption.