Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Question of the day
Next Post: *** UPDATED x2 - Emanuel responds - Cullerton responds *** Rauner vetoes Chicago pension fund bill
Posted in:
* Libertarian Party candidates filed a federal lawsuit in 2016 challenging a state law that bans all campaign contributions from medical cannabis cultivation centers and dispensaries. They won today in US District Judge John Z. Lee’s courtroom.
In sum, the Court concludes that Defendants have failed to meet their burden of showing that § 9-45 is closely drawn to the government’s interest in preventing quid pro quo corruption or its appearance. Defendants have offered no justification for imposing an outright ban on contributions from medical cannabis cultivation centers and dispensaries when more moderate measures, such as dollar limits on contributions, are available. Nor have they explained why the risk of corruption or the appearance of corruption might be uniquely problematic in the medical cannabis industry, such that it could be justifiable for the government to target contribution restrictions at the medical cannabis industry alone. As such, the Court concludes that § 9-45 places a significant and unjustifiable burden on the rights to freedom of speech and freedom of association. Section 9-45 is therefore invalid under the First Amendment.
As the judge rightly pointed out, Illinois heavily regulates riverboat casinos but doesn’t prohibit them from contributing to campaigns. This was a bad law.
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Mar 24, 17 @ 3:18 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Question of the day
Next Post: *** UPDATED x2 - Emanuel responds - Cullerton responds *** Rauner vetoes Chicago pension fund bill
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Didn’t know that was in there, or how anyone could think it was legal.
Sweetener to get it over the top with a few legislators?
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Mar 24, 17 @ 3:29 pm
word, I think it was a Quinn demand for him to sign it.
Comment by Juice Friday, Mar 24, 17 @ 3:38 pm
Juice, I think you’re right.
And I still don’t miss him.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Mar 24, 17 @ 3:43 pm
About time. This looked pretty unconstitutional on its face.
Comment by Illinoisian Friday, Mar 24, 17 @ 3:43 pm
And now the state will have to add the plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees to the bill pile.
Comment by titan Friday, Mar 24, 17 @ 3:46 pm
Honest question though Rich, if you support the State’s pay to play ban, why would you consider this to be bad law?
There is just as much money (if not more) at stake in terms of handing out these licenses versus who gets a state contract.
Comment by Juice Friday, Mar 24, 17 @ 3:46 pm
===why would you consider this to be bad law?===
It’s singling out a single regulated industry for punishment. Is ComEd banned from contributing? Is Rivers Casino? Are trucking companies? No. Until you ban all of them, then don’t ban the weed peeps.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Mar 24, 17 @ 3:52 pm
“Don’t ban the weed peeps” yet another T shirt I want
Comment by Amalia Friday, Mar 24, 17 @ 3:58 pm
Correct result on the law. Smoke ‘em if you got ‘em.
Comment by Ron Burgundy Friday, Mar 24, 17 @ 4:01 pm
I would argue trucking companies are different because there are not a set number of licenses being handed out.
But I’m not sure all of those more tightly regulated entities (like ComEd and the casinos) shouldn’t have a similar ban.
(And how many times did Quinn burn bridges with members of his own party by pointing out the campaign contributions those entities were handing out?)
Comment by Juice Friday, Mar 24, 17 @ 4:04 pm