Concurrence Stevens Date decided 2000 | Dissent Kennedy | |
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 Majority Souter, joined by Rehnquist, Stevens, O'Connor, Ginsburg, Breyer Concurrence Breyer, joined by Ginsburg Ruling court Supreme Court of the United States People also search for American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression v. Strickland | ||
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, 424 U. S. 1 (1976) upholding federal limits on campaign contributions also applied to state limits on campaign contributions to state offices.
Contents
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."
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.