A federal judge suspended a law Friday that limits campaign contributions in Kentucky school board races to $100 — making candidates in those races eligible for the $1,000 cap from individual contributors allowed in other races.

U.S. District Judge Danny C. Reeves in Frankfort ruled that the limit unconstitutionally restricts a candidate's right to free association. 

The injunction against the Registry of ElectionFinance comes in a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of a college professor and one-time candidate for the school board in Louisville.

The ACLU and school board candidate claimed the limit was unconstitutional and hindered the right to free speech in a political campaign.

Kentucky had barred anyone from donating more than $100 to school board candidates, and mad the violation a felony. The individual contribution limit in most other races is $1,000.

Kentucky's campaign finance regulators argued, among other things, that the $100 limit in school board races was in place to keep political influence out of the schools.

“The Court does not find the justification of ‘eliminating political influence in schools' sufficiently important to justify the abridgment of individuals' associational rights,” Reeves wrote.

The ACLU brought the suit on behalf of Ben Foster, who ran for office in 2008 in Louisville. Foster lost to Larry Hujo, even though the two raised and spent similar amounts of money.

Reeves noted that outside groups, including the Jefferson County Teachers Association, raised and spent more than a hundred thousand dollars in support of individual candidates.

While the $100 limit works in smaller, rural counties, it has the effect in metro areas of amplifying the voices of third-party groups that do not have to abide by contribution limits, Reeves said.

“Here, the Plaintiffs have shown that mounting a campaign on individual contributions is nearly impossible in Jefferson County,” Reeves wrote.

Emily Dennis, an attorney for the Kentucky Registry of Election Finance, argued in the case that the courtroom was the wrong place to object to or change the law.

“To the extent the time has come to review the contribution limit, perhaps even to increase it, the answer is legislative change, not judicial intervention,” Dennis wrote.