Family Pac v. Rob McKenna

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that $25 and $100 contribution disclosure thresholds survive “exacting scrutiny” in the context of ballot initiatives
• holding contribution limits, even those that operate as a ban, not subject to strict scrutiny
• rejecting argument that a 21-day contribution limit was closely tailored in light of modern technology
• noting the “important (and even compelling) informational interest” in “informing the voting public” through disclosure of contributions to ballot measure committees
• distinguishing Gable because the provision at issue was necessary to Kentucky’s implementation of its public funding system
• upholding disclosure requirements when they “impose[d] only modest burdens on First Amendment rights, while serving a governmental interest in an informed electorate that is of the utmost importance”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).