Arizona State Democratic Party v. State
Court of Appeals of Arizona
1DissentTimmer, Judge
¶ 54 I respectfully dissent. After applying accepted principles of statutory construction to A.R.S. § 16-919(A) and (B), I conclude that a corporation, limited liability company, or labor organization14 violates these provisions only when making contributions to prospective candidates, candidates, or their campaign representatives for the purpose of influencing elections involving those candidates. Because the corporate contributions to the Party at issue in this case were not made for this prohibited purpose, I would reverse the summary judgment and remand to the trial court with directions…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- State v. WilliamsArizona Supreme Court · 1993
- City of Phoenix v. Super. Ct., Maricopa Cty.Arizona Supreme Court · 1984
- Evenstad v. StateCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1993
- Pima County v. HeinfeldArizona Supreme Court · 1982
- City of Phoenix v. Superior CourtCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1984
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.