A federal appeals court dismissed challenges, albeit on procedural grounds, to a federal rule barring investment advisers or their placement agents from providing advisory services to government entities within two years of making political contributions.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit on Thursday turned away challenges to the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority's Rule 2030 lodged by the Georgia Republican Party, the New York Republican State Committee and the Tennessee Republican Party.

A three-judge panel of the court ruled that the Georgia Republican Party lacked standing to challenge the rule. Since Georgia's challenge should be dismissed, the Eleventh Circuit was not the proper venue for the New York and Tennessee Republican organizations, the panel added, transferring their appeals to the District of Columbia Circuit.

The organizations were challenging Rule 2030, arguing that FINRA had no authority to impose the rule and that the rule itself violated the First Amendment.

The bulk of the ruling was devoted to the Georgia Republican Party's lack of standing. It could not demonstrate, the court said, that the party itself or any of its members would suffer or had suffered injury.

“A prospective injury that is contingent on the choices of a third party is less likely to establish standing,” wrote Judge Julie Carnes for the court. Judges William Pryor and Timothy Corrigan joined in the ruling.

“Here, the Georgia party is not directly regulated by Rule 2030,” Carnes said.

The Georgia Republican Party said it had standing because its fundraising would suffer as a result of the rule, that it would have to divert resources, and its members would be harmed. It cited the U.S. Supreme Court's 2000 ruling in Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw Environmental Services. There, the court said an association could file a lawsuit if one of its members suffered an injury.

Carnes said that ruling applied only if there was an actual injury and that the Georgia party had not demonstrated that.

“[T]he Georgia party has failed to allege that a specific member will be injured by the rule, and it certainly offers no evidence to support such an allegation,” Carnes said.

The party, citing the Eleventh Circuit's 2008 ruling in Florida State Conference of the NAACP v. Browning, said it was not required to “name names” in order to demonstrate standing. Carnes, however, said the Supreme Court in its 2009 ruling, Summers v. Earth Island Institute, largely rejected that theory.

“For reasons unknown to this court, the Georgia party has not submitted an affidavit from a member who is a placement agent regulated by Rule 2030 and who has decided not to make a particular contribution,” Carnes said.

The appeals court then turned briefly to the New York and Tennessee Republican challengers.

“Without the Georgia party, this circuit is clearly not the appropriate venue for the New York committee and the Tennessee party because neither resides or has a principal place of business within the circuit,” Carnes said.

The appeals court noted that that parties eventually agreed that the D.C. Circuit would be the more appropriate venue.

One attorney for the Republican organizations, Jason Torchinsky, offered a brief statement.

“We are disappointed in the court's decision, but we look forward to having the D.C. Circuit address the important constitutional issues presented in the case,” said Torchinsky, of the Warrenton, Virginia, office of Holtzman Vogel Josefiak Torchinsky.

Media representatives from FINRA did not respond to a request for comment.