Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Politics and money (Upheld (Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC: the…
Politics and money
Upheld
Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC: the Court upheld a Missouri law that set contribution limits for candidates to state government office
California Medical Assn. v. FEC: Supreme Court upheld a provision of the Federal Election Campaign Act that limited the amount that individuals and associations could contribute to a political action committee
First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti: The Court held that the right to attempt to influence the outcomes of elections is one of the primary rights the First Amendment was meant to protect, whether a corporation or a person.
Austin v. Michigan State Chamber of Commerce: the Court upheld a restriction on corporate contributions or expenditures and spoke of the ability of the state to limit corporate speech so as to limit the distortions caused by corporate wealth
McConnell v. Federal Election Commission: the Court upheld a provision of the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act (overruled by Citizens United)
Struck down
Randall v. Sorrell: the Court found Vermont’s limits on contributions to be so restrictive as to violate the First Amendment
McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission: the Court declared unconstitutional the aggregate contribution limits found in the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act
FEC v. National Conservative PAC: the Court declared unconstitutional expenditure limits imposed on political action committees by the Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act
Important cases
Buckley v. Valeo
the primary interest served by the limitations and, indeed, by the Act as a whole, is the prevention of corruption and the appearance of corruption spawned by the real or imagined coercive influence of large financial contributions on candidates’ positions and on their actions if elected to office
restrictions on individual contributions to political campaigns and candidates did not violate the First Amendment
restriction of independent expenditures in campaigns, the limitation on expenditures by candidates from their own personal or family resources, and the limitation on total campaign expenditures did violate the First Amendment
-
Citizens United v. FEC
under the First Amendment corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited
The majority maintained that political speech is indispensable to a democracy, which is no less true because the speech comes from a corporation.
-
Citizens United sought an injunction against the Federal Election Commission in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to prevent the application of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA)
-