Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 Supreme Court of the United States |
||||||
| Argued October 5, 1999 Decided January 24, 2000 |
||||||
| Full case name | Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General of Missouri, et al., Petitioners v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC, et al. | |||||
| Citations | 528 U.S. 377 (more)
120 S. Ct. 897; 145 L. Ed. 2d 886; 2000 U.S. LEXIS 826; 68 U.S.L.W. 4102; 2000 Cal. Daily Op. Service 548; 2000 Daily Journal DAR 857; 2000 Colo. J. C.A.R. 462; 13 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 75
|
|||||
| Court membership | ||||||
|
||||||
| Case opinions | ||||||
| Majority | Souter, joined by Rehnquist, Stevens, O'Connor, Ginsburg, Breyer | |||||
| Concurrence | Stevens | |||||
| Concurrence | Breyer, joined by Ginsburg | |||||
| Dissent | Kennedy | |||||
| Dissent | Thomas, joined by Scalia | |||||
Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC, 528 U.S. 377 (2000),[1] was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that their earlier decision in Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1 (1976) upholding federal limits on campaign contributions also applied to state limits on campaign contributions to state offices.
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. Missouri Attorney General Jay Nixon argued for the petitioners.
See also [edit]
- List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 528
- List of United States Supreme Court cases
- Lists of United States Supreme Court cases by volume
External links [edit]
|
This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |
