Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC
Citations
- 528 U.S. 377
- 120 S. Ct. 897
- 145 L. Ed. 2d 886
- 2000 U.S. LEXIS 826
- 2000 Colo. J. C.A.R. 462
- 2000 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 548
- 2000 Daily Journal DAR 857
- 13 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 75
- 68 U.S.L.W. 4102
About this case
Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC
Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC, 528 U.S. 377 (2000), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that their earlier decision in _Buckley v. Valeo _ (1976),[1] upholding federal limits on campaign contributions also applied to state limits on campaign contributions to state offices.[2]
Contents
Background
(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nixon_v._Shrink_Missouri_Government_PAC&action=edit§ion=1 "Edit section: Background")
Buckley v. Valeo established a "$1000 cap on individuals' contributions to candidates for federal office" in 1976. A 1998 statute increased the contribution limit to $1075 for statewide office candidates. In that year, Zev David Fredman filed suit alleging that "the Missouri statute imposing limits on contributions to candidates for state office violated" a candidates First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Fredman further argued that he could only campaign effectively with contributions exceeding $1075. The Federal District Court upheld the statute on limitations to campaign donations. The Court of Appeals then reversed the decision finding that "Missouri's interest in avoiding the corruption or the perception of corruption caused by candidates' acceptance of large campaign contributions was insufficient to satisfy Buckly's strict scrutiny standard of review."[3] [2]
Decision of the Supreme Court
(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nixon_v._Shrink_Missouri_Government_PAC&action=edit§ion=2 "Edit section: Decision of the Supreme Court")
Justice John Paul Stevens' concurrence questioned more than two decades of campaign finance jurisprudence, stating: "Money is property; it is not speech."
Professor D. Bruce La Pierre argued in front of the Court for the respondents. Patric Lester appeared on the brief. Missouri Attorney General Jay Nixon argued for the petitioners.
See also
(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nixon_v._Shrink_Missouri_Government_PAC&action=edit§ion=3 "Edit section: See also")
References
(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nixon_v._Shrink_Missouri_Government_PAC&action=edit§ion=4 "Edit section: References")
- ↑ _Buckley v. Valeo _, 424 U.S. 1 (1976).
- 1 2 Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC, 528 U.S. 377 (2000).
- ↑ "Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC - 528 U.S. 377 (2000)" . Oyez: Chicago-Kent College of Law. Retrieved November 21, 2013.
External links
(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nixon_v._Shrink_Missouri_Government_PAC&action=edit§ion=5 "Edit section: External links")
- Text of Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC, 528 U.S. 377 (2000) is available from: CourtListener Internet Archive (docket files) Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nixon_v._Shrink_Missouri_Government_PAC&oldid=1351330526 "
Editorial context from Wikipedia (CC-BY-SA 4.0).
Judges: Souter, Rehnquist, Stevens, O'Connor, Ginsburg, Breyer, Kennedy, Thomas, Scaixa
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced 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.