Markley v. State Elections Enforcement Commission
Citations
- 349 Conn. 67
Syllabus
The plaintiffs, M and S, candidates for state legislative offices in the 2014 general election, appealed to the trial court from the decision of the defendant, the State Elections Enforcement Commission, which assessed fines against the plaintiffs upon determining that they had violated certain state statutes and regulations governing campaign financing and the Citizens' Election Program (program) (§ 9-700 et seq.). The plaintiffs' respective campaign committees had each applied for and received public funding grants through the program. During the 2014 election cycle, the plaintiffs' campaign committees published certain communications and advertisements that made various references to the record and policies of D, then the governor, who was running for reelection at that time. The communications both touted the plaintiffs' respective accomplishments and positions and referred to their opposi- tion to the agenda advanced by D and D's Democratic allies, including tax hikes and increased spending. One of the communications high- lighted votes taken by S's opponent in the 2014 election, C, when C was serving as a state representative. C filed a complaint with the commission, alleging that the communications were impermissible cam- paign expenditures under the program. C relied on an advisory opinion previously issued by the commission, in which it interpreted the statutes (§§ 9-601b and 9-607 (g)) defining the term ''expenditure'' and governing the permissibility of campaign expenditures, as well as the state regula- tions (§§ 9-706-1 and 9-706-2) implementing the program, and concluded that, in the absence of a statutory exception to the definition of ''expendi- ture,'' funds in a candidate committee's account may not be used to make a communication that is not directly related to the candidate's own electoral race and that also promotes the defeat of or attacks a candidate who is not a direct opponent of the candidate sponsoring the communication but who is running
Judges: Robinson; McDonald; Mullins; Ecker; Alexander
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCites
41 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Perry v. SindermannSupreme Court· 1972-06-29· cited 5,238×
- Buckley v. ValeoSupreme Court· 1976-02-27· cited 4,982×
- Citizens United v. Federal Election CommissionSupreme Court· 2010-01-21· cited 1,732×
- Reed v. Town of GilbertSupreme Court· 2015-06-18· cited 1,319×
- Rust v. SullivanSupreme Court· 1991-05-23· cited 1,298×
- Davis v. Federal Election CommissionSupreme Court· 2008-06-26· cited 1,183×
- Regan v. Taxation With Representation of WashingtonSupreme Court· 1983-05-23· cited 882×
- McConnell v. Federal Election CommissionSupreme Court· 2003-12-10· cited 740×
- Pleasant Grove City v. SummumSupreme Court· 2009-02-25· cited 739×
- Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc.Supreme Court· 2007-06-25· cited 666×
- Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PACSupreme Court· 2000-01-24· cited 485×
- Federal Election Commission v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Inc.Supreme Court· 1986-12-15· cited 480×
- Federal Communications Commission v. League of Women Voters of CaliforniaSupreme Court· 1984-07-02· cited 473×
- Matal v. TamSupreme Court· 2017-06-19· cited 331×
- Legal Services Corp. v. VelazquezSupreme Court· 2001-02-28· cited 314×
- Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. Federal Election CommissionSupreme Court· 1996-06-26· cited 274×
- Pursuing America's Greatness v. Federal Election CommissionD.C. Circuit· 2016-08-02· cited 229×
- Agency for Int'l Development v. Alliance for Open Society Int'l, Inc.Supreme Court· 2013-06-20· cited 209×
- Federal Election Commission v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign CommitteeSupreme Court· 2001-06-25· cited 205×
- United States v. American Library Assn., Inc.Supreme Court· 2003-06-23· cited 205×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.