Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC

2000 United States Supreme Court case
Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC
Argued October 5, 1999
Decided January 24, 2000
Full 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 886
Case history
PriorShrink 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).
Holding
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).
Court membership
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Associate Justices
John P. Stevens · Sandra Day O'Connor
Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy
David Souter · Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg · Stephen Breyer
Case opinions
MajoritySouter, joined by Rehnquist, Stevens, O'Connor, Ginsburg, Breyer
ConcurrenceStevens
ConcurrenceBreyer, joined by Ginsburg
DissentKennedy
DissentThomas, joined by Scalia

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]

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."[3][2]

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. Patric Lester appeared on the brief. Missouri Attorney General Jay Nixon argued for the petitioners.

See also

References

  1. ^ Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976).
  2. ^ a b Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC, 528 U.S. 377 (2000).
  3. ^ "Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC - 528 U.S. 377 (2000)". Oyez: Chicago-Kent College of Law. Retrieved November 21, 2013.

External links

  • Text of Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC, 528 U.S. 377 (2000) is available from: CourtListener  Justia  Library of Congress  Oyez (oral argument audio) 
  • v
  • t
  • e
Public displays
and ceremonies
Statutory religious
exemptions
Public funding
Religion in
public schools
Private religious speech
Internal church affairs
Taxpayer standing
Blue laws
Other
Exclusion of religion
from public benefits
Ministerial exception
Statutory religious exemptions
RFRA
RLUIPA
Unprotected
speech
Incitement
and sedition
Libel and
false speech
Fighting words and
the heckler's veto
True threats
Obscenity
Speech integral
to criminal conduct
Strict scrutiny
Vagueness
Symbolic speech
versus conduct
Content-based
restrictions
Content-neutral
restrictions
In the
public forum
Designated
public forum
Nonpublic
forum
Compelled speech
Compelled subsidy
of others' speech
Compelled representation
Government grants
and subsidies
Government
as speaker
Loyalty oaths
School speech
Public employees
Hatch Act and
similar laws
Licensing and
restriction of speech
Commercial speech
Campaign finance
and political speech
Anonymous speech
State action
Official retaliation
Boycotts
Prisons
Prior restraints
and censorship
Privacy
Taxation and
privileges
Defamation
Broadcast media
Copyrighted materials
Incorporation
Protection from prosecution
and state restrictions
Organizations
Future Conduct
Solicitation
Membership restriction
Primaries and elections


Stub icon

This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

  • v
  • t
  • e