Missouri law section 130.011(8), which governs election campaign committees, states that committees “shall be formed no later than thirty days prior to the election” and “shall terminate the later of either thirty days after the general election or upon the satisfaction of all committee debt after the general election.” Furthermore, chapter 130 of the law contained provisions allowing the Missouri Ethics Commission (MEC) to fine and penalize any person who made financial contributions to campaign committees that violated section 130.011(8) by forming thirty days before an election.

Missourians for Fiscal Accountability (MFA) formed a campaign committee less than thirty days before the November 4 election in 2014. Eight days after its formation, MFA sued the MEC, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief from the thirty day rule. MFA sued the MEC under the theory that its First Amendment rights were being chilled by the thirty day rule. The district court granted a temporary restraining order two days before the election, and MFA received and spent $525 on robocalls.

After the election, the District Court dismissed MFA’s suit based on lack of standing because the case was now moot and lacked ripeness. MFA appealed the dismissal and the Eight Circuit Court reversed the District Court ruling. Why do you think the Eighth Circuit Court reversed the decision even though the election had passed and MFA was no longer constrained by the thirty-day rule?