JEFFERSON CITY (AP) - The Missouri Republican Party suggested yesterday that the state Supreme Court’s decision reinstating campaign contribution limits should apply only to donations made after the ruling.

If the court agrees, that would mean candidates could keep any money raised above the contribution limits from January until the court ruled earlier this month.

If the court decides its decision applies back to January, Republican Gov. Matt Blunt’s campaign stands to lose about $3.9 million, and his likely Democratic challenger, Attorney General Jay Nixon, would lose about $1 million.

The state Ethics Commission’s brief, filed by Nixon last week, takes the opposite tack, arguing candidates should have to give back excess money to provide a level playing field for new challengers.

Nixon’s filing called for an exception for those whose race has ended, such as this spring’s municipal elections, or those who closed their campaign committees before the court’s July 19 decision.

However, the Republican Party argued in its brief filed yesterday that it’s unfair to punish candidates and donors who simply followed the rule of law at the time.

"Members of the public reasonably and justifiably relied on the duly enacted law of the General Assembly in exercising their First Amendment rights, and this court’s unexpected decision should be applied prospectively," attorney Harvey Tettlebaum wrote in the brief.

The attorney general’s office did not immediately return a call seeking comment.

Nixon campaign spokesman Oren Shur said the attorney general is following his client’s wishes. "Jay Nixon’s brief is based on the law and the recommendations of the Missouri Ethics Commission," he said.

The Republican Party also disagrees with the court’s original ruling, saying the removal of limits should be upheld.

The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, overturned a lower judge who had thrown out a fundraising ban for elected officials and challengers during the legislative session but kept intact the overall repeal of Missouri’s individual contribution limits.

The Supreme Court said the legislative history of the bill indicated lawmakers would not have repealed contribution limits if the donation blackout period was not in effect.

But the Republican Party disputed that finding.

"That conclusion is incorrect because the Senate was not choosing between the repeal of limits with a black-out period or nothing at all," the party’s brief said.

Nixon did not appeal the decision tossing the blackout period, saying a federal court already determined such provisions are unconstitutional violations of free-speech rights.

Jared Craighead, the Republican Party’s executive director, claimed Nixon was making political, rather than legal, determinations in the case. "Obviously what he’s advocating benefits him politically the most," he said, saying Nixon was "trying to get rid of Matt Blunt’s fundraising advantage."

Nixon’s campaign responded that the GOP, led by the governor, wants Blunt to be able to keep the many large contributions he received this year. "Matt Blunt’s position has nothing to do with the law and everything to do with protecting a system that allows him to take millions from wealthy corporations and special interest lobbyists," Shur said.

Craighead also reiterated the party’s concern that Nixon, as a candidate, stands to gain from the court’s decision.

The GOP also argues that the state’s suggestion to provide exceptions to applying the decision retroactively leaves open the possibility of more litigation from candidates making equal-protection claims.

Copyright 2007 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Advertisement