Campaign finance3free - McConnell v. FEC March 31, 2009...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–5. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
McConnell v. FEC March 31, 2009
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
McConnell v. FEC District Court rules in May 2003 Strikes down some of the laws provisions Supreme court rules in December 2003 Upholds laws major provisions Strikes down party committees spending choice provision
Background image of page 2
Supreme Court expands definition of corruption Quid-pro-quo not required Access, appearance
Background image of page 3

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
No more magic words That position misapprehends our prior decisions, for the express advocacy restriction was an endpoint of statutory interpretation, not a first principle of constitutional law. In Buckley we . . . provided examples of words of express advocacy, such as "vote for," "elect," "support," . . . "defeat," [and] "reject," and those examples eventually gave rise to what is now known as the "magic words" requirement. . . . [But] our decisions in Buckley and MCFL were specific to the statutory language before us; they in no way drew a constitutional boundary that forever fixed the permissible scope of provisions regulating campaign-related speech.
Background image of page 4
Image of page 5
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 12

Campaign finance3free - McConnell v. FEC March 31, 2009...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 5. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online