Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
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.


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."[2][3]

Decision of the Supreme Court[edit]

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]


  1. ^ 528 U.S. 377 (Text of the opinion on
  2. ^ "Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC - 528 U.S. 377 (2000)". Oyez: Chicago-Kent College of Law. Retrieved 21 November 2013. 
  3. ^ "Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC - 528 U.S. 377 (2000)". Justia: US Supreme Court Center. Retrieved 21 November 2013.