States can limit individual contributions to state political candidates, and those limits need not be pegged to the precise dollar amounts approved in Buckley v. Valeo (1976).
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 Courtedit
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.
nixon, shrink, missouri, government, 2000, case, which, supreme, court, united, states, held, that, their, earlier, decision, buckley, valeo, 1976, upholding, federal, limits, campaign, contributions, also, applied, state, limits, campaign, contributions, stat. 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 Nixon v Shrink Missouri Government PACSupreme Court of the United StatesArgued October 5 1999Decided January 24 2000Full case nameJeremiah W Jay Nixon Attorney General of Missouri et al Petitioners v Shrink Missouri Government PAC et al Citations528 U S 377 more 120 S Ct 897 145 L Ed 2d 886Case historyPriorShrink Mo Gov t PAC v Adams 5 F Supp 2d 734 E D Mo 1998 injunction granted 151 F 3d 763 8th Cir 1998 reversed 161 F 3d 519 8th Cir 1998 cert granted 525 U S 1121 1999 HoldingStates can limit individual contributions to state political candidates and those limits need not be pegged to the precise dollar amounts approved in Buckley v Valeo 1976 Court membershipChief Justice William Rehnquist Associate Justices John P Stevens Sandra Day O ConnorAntonin Scalia Anthony KennedyDavid Souter Clarence ThomasRuth Bader Ginsburg Stephen BreyerCase opinionsMajoritySouter joined by Rehnquist Stevens O Connor Ginsburg BreyerConcurrenceStevensConcurrenceBreyer joined by GinsburgDissentKennedyDissentThomas joined by Scalia Contents 1 Background 2 Decision of the Supreme Court 3 See also 4 References 5 External linksBackground editBuckley 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 editJustice 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 editList of United States Supreme Court cases volume 528 List of United States Supreme Court cases Lists of United States Supreme Court cases by volumeReferences edit Buckley v Valeo 424 U S 1 1976 a b 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 editText of Nixon v Shrink Missouri Government PAC 528 U S 377 2000 is available from CourtListener Justia Library of Congress Oyez oral argument audio nbsp This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub You can help Wikipedia by expanding it vte Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title Nixon v Shrink Missouri Government PAC amp oldid 1175147738, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,
