Credit: Fresnel/Shutterstock.com

A federal appeals court has upheld a ruling that Pennsylvania's law restricting those with business interests in legalized gambling from contributing to political campaigns is unconstitutional.

In Deon v. Barasch, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling that while Section 1513 of the Gaming Act is important for preventing quid pro quo politics, the act's restriction on political contributions was not "closely drawn."

"It is axiomatic that a democratic government must make every effort to fight corruption, and the perception of it, to protect the integrity of its electoral, legislative, and regulatory processes. But when it acts it must be mindful of the fundamental speech and associational rights guaranteed by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution at stake. We conclude that the district court did not err and we will affirm the order," wrote Third Circuit Judge Richard Nygaard in the court's May 29 opinion.

The case was brought by Pasquale Deon, the chairman of SEPTA's board who has a controlling interest in the Sands Casino in Bethlehem, and businesswoman Maggie Hardy Magerko, owner of the Nemacolin Woodlands Resort, against state gaming officials and the Attorney General's Office.

They claimed that the act curtailed their First Amendment rights by limiting political speech. The district court agreed, granting summary judgment in their favor.

Nygaard also agreed, and said the court did not need to address the state's argument of the statute's intent to thwart corruption.

The questioned turned on whether the law was a good "fit" for its intended purpose, while not stifling the rights of Pennsylvanians.

"The commonwealth's implicit appeal to 'common sense' as a surrogate for evidence in support of its far-reaching regulatory scheme is noteworthy in this evidence-based inquiry, particularly in light of the approach taken by most other similarly situated states," Nygaard said. "Our assessment of fit is meaningless unless we can be sure that it is fixed to a reasonable understanding of the real world that Pennsylvania faces. Ultimately, this dearth of evidence is why the commonwealth falls well short of its burden to show that Section 1513 is closely drawn. Like the district court, we do not conclude that it is impossible for the commonwealth to defend the proportionality of its law. We only conclude that it has failed to give us enough information to assess it here. This failure is dispositive."

John Hamill of DLA Piper argued plaintiffs' case before the Third Circuit and did not respond to a request for comment. The Office of the Attorney General also did not respond.