Missouri's Campaign Finance Disclosure Law, Mo.Rev.Stat. Ch. 130 (1994), was amended twice in 1994. In July the state legislature adopted a measure commonly known as Senate Bill 650, and in November the citizens of Missouri adopted a ballot initiative commonly known as Proposition A. Both of these measures limit election campaign contributions and expenditures and thus tend to limit the free exercise of political speech that the First Amendment guarantees. W. Bevis Schock and Frederick T. Dyer, prospective candidates for public office, and Shrink Missouri Government PAC, a political action committee (PAC) planning to make campaign contributions in future elections, sought a permanent injunction against the implementation and enforcement of the following provisions of the amended Campaign Finance Disclosure Law: (1) the Proposition A limits on campaign contributions,
Mo.Ann.Stat. § 130.100 (Vernon Supp.1995), as applied to contributions by candidates to their own campaigns; (2) the limits on total expenditures by candidates,
id. §§ 130.052,
130.053; (3) the restrictions on carrying over campaign funds from one election to another,
id. § 130.130; and (4) the requirement that negative campaign advertisements state that they were approved and authorized by the candidate on whose behalf they were disseminated,
id. § 130.031. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the District Court
held that each of these provisions violated the First Amendment rights of candidates and their contributors. The court enjoined the Attorney General of Missouri and the Chair of the Missouri Ethics Commission (referred to herein jointly as “the state”) from implementing, enforcing, or acting in reliance on the challenged provisions.
Shrink Missouri Government PAC v. Maupin, 892 F.Supp. 1246 (E.D.Mo.1995). The state now timely appeals.
After a de novo review of the District Court's judgment,
see Maitland v. University of Minnesota, 43 F.3d 357, 360 (8th Cir.1994), we conclude that the challenged provisions violate the First Amendment. We therefore affirm the well-reasoned decision of the District Court.