Federal Case

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• ruling that plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge limits on campaign contributions based on lack of “specificity about future plans for contributions to display a real or even a threatened injury”
• holding that the court may take judicial notice of legislative facts
• affirming dismissal of challenge to gubernatorial campaign limits on standing grounds where no plaintiff had run for governor in the past or claimed that, but for the limit, they would give more than the challenged limit to a gubernatorial candidate
• “We cannot adopt the logic of Day, which equates responsive speech with an impairment to the initial speaker.”
• \A law providing public funding for political campaigns is valid if it achieves 'a rough proportionality between the advantages available to complying candidates ... and the restrictions that such candidates must accept to receive these advantages.' \ (ellipsis in original
• “A law providing public funding for political campaigns is valid if it achieves ‘a rough proportionality between the advantages available to complying candidates . . . and the restrictions that such candidates must accept to receive these advantages.’” (ellipsis in original

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).