## Facts

- Kentucky law, KRS § 121.150(6), limited an individual’s direct contributions to a candidate for local school-board office to $100 and provided for criminal penalties for violations.
- Benjamin Foster sued to challenge the constitutionality of the $100 limit, alleging it restricted his First Amendment rights of political expression and association.
- Foster named as defendants Craig Dilger, chairman of the Kentucky Registry of Election Finance, and the Kentucky Registry of Election Finance (the registry).
- Foster alleged that the low $100 limit constrained meaningful support for school-board candidates and, in turn, limited candidates’ ability to run effective campaigns funded through direct contributions.
- Foster asserted that independent expenditures in school-board elections could be substantial, making the low direct-contribution cap especially burdensome for candidates attempting to finance campaign activity through lawful, direct donations.
- Foster sought declaratory and injunctive relief, including a preliminary injunction to stop enforcement of KRS § 121.150(6) while the case was litigated.

## Issues

1. Whether Foster was entitled to a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of KRS § 121.150(6)’s $100 individual contribution limit to school-board candidates based on his First Amendment challenge.

## Decision

- The court denied Foster’s motion for a preliminary injunction.
- The court treated continued operation and enforcement of KRS § 121.150(6) as the existing condition to be preserved at the preliminary stage, and concluded Foster had not met the showing required to justify enjoining enforcement before a final merits decision.
- As a result, the statutory $100 contribution limit remained in effect pending further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy intended to preserve the existing condition pending final adjudication; the moving party must satisfy the court that interim relief is justified under the applicable factors (including likelihood of success and the remaining equitable considerations).
- Contribution limits affecting political speech and association are evaluated under the First Amendment framework applicable to campaign-finance contribution restrictions; courts ask whether the limit is closely drawn to serve a sufficiently important governmental interest.
- The presence of criminal penalties for violating a contribution restriction is relevant to the practical consequences of enforcement, but it does not by itself establish entitlement to preliminary injunctive relief.

## Conclusion

In *Foster v. Dilger*, the Eastern District of Kentucky addressed a First Amendment challenge to Kentucky’s $100 cap on direct contributions to school-board candidates under KRS § 121.150(6). Although Foster argued the limit significantly restricted political expression and association—especially given the role independent expenditures can play in such elections—the court denied his request for a preliminary injunction and left the statute in force while the litigation continued.


Foster v. Dilger, Civil Action No. 3:10-41 (2010)