Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC
| Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC | |
|---|---|
 | |
| 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.
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."[2][3]
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. Missouri Attorney General Jay Nixon argued for the petitioners.
See also
- 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
References
- ^ 528 U.S. 377 (Text of the opinion on Findlaw.com)
- ^ "Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC - 528 U.S. 377 (2000)". Oyez: Chicago-Kent College of Law. Retrieved 21 November 2013.
- ^ "Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC - 528 U.S. 377 (2000)". Justia: US Supreme Court Center. Retrieved 21 November 2013.
 | This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |