It sure took the FPPC long enough to decide, and as the FPPC notes in its press release, its rules now remain in effect for the pendency of the appeal (unless, as seems possible, Citizens/Schwarzenegger get an injunction preventing enforcement of the regulation pending appeal—though it looks like the plaintiffs disagree with the FPPC position on what happens pending appeal.) Thanks to Jeremy Thompson for the pointer. A brief Bee story is here.
This is a very important case. I think there is a fair chance that an appeals court agrees with the lower court that these regulations cannot be enforced so as to limit contributions to candiate-controlled ballot measure campaigns in California. But that’s not because such limits are unconstitutional. I’ve argued that such limits likely are now constitutional. But there are serious questions as to whether the FPPC had the authority to enact the regulation and whether its particular wording creates unacceptable amounts of vagueness.
I hope that any appellate court opinion will go out of its way to note that a properly enacted and less vague statute can survive constitutional muster in light of McConnell and despite the Citizens Against Rent Control case.
UPDATE: Fred Woocher (whose opinion I respect a great deal) has posted the following remarks on the election law listserv (reprinted with permission):

I have not been able to find a copy of the FPPC’s notice of appeal, and I therefore have not been able to see if the agency cites anything in support of its argument that the Superior Court’s ruling is stayed during the pendency of the appeal, but I do not see why that would be the case. The Superior Court, if I understand the ruling correctly, issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting the FPPC from enforcing the challenged regulation pending a full trial on the merits. Under California law, the filing of a notice of appeal from the granting of a prohibitory injunction — temporary, preliminary, or permanent — does not typically stay the trial court’s order. By contrast, the filing of an appeal from a mandatory injunction — that is, an injunction that ordered the agency to do something that it was not otherwise doing — would stay the trial court decision.
Unless I’m missing something, I think the plaintiffs are clearly correct and the FPPC is just blowing smoke on this one.