Talk:McConnell v. Federal Election Commission

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

Law

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles

Please, what were the main arguments for the opinions?[edit]

I inserted the request to expand the Opinions section since there seem to be many mentions of the McCain-Feingold Act this election season. I would be very grateful if a Wikipedian with knowledge of this subject would summarize the arguments for and against upholding the constitutionality of the law in question. The relevant words of the First Amendment say, "Congress shall make no law respecting ... or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;...," so I would think that would settle the issue, and I suspect this was the view of at least some of the dissenters, but I would love to know the details and the rationales of those who spoke for the majority and minority views. In summary form, of course, since the full decision is readily available for those with the time and knowledge to handle the legal technicalities. Thanks.

Also, The Oral arguments section has an opening sentence about oral arguments but the balance of the paragraph is actually about the final conclusions of the justices, not the arguments they heard or made. Let's face it, this article needs work. —Blanchette (talk) 10:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the holding is correct...in Nixon v. Shrink Missouri, Justice Stevens in a Concurrence states that "money is property, not speech." That is not the central legal issue that is decided in this case. In fact no where in the language of McConnell does it state that. So whoever wrote the summary is wrong. Sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.229.90.88 (talk) 05:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warning - Incorrect information.[edit]

I don't think the holding is correct...in Nixon v. Shrink Missouri, Justice Stevens in a Concurrence states that "money is property, not speech." That is not the central legal issue that is decided in this case. In fact no where in the language of McConnell does it state that. So whoever wrote the summary is wrong. Sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.229.90.88 (talk) 05:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update needed[edit]

In light of the Supreme Court recent decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, an update of this article is needed. Also, I don't believe Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. overruled any part of McConnell. SMP0328. (talk) 04:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]