Parties: Colo. Republican Fed. Campaign Comm. v. Fec
Date: 1996-06-26
Identifiers:
Opinions:
Segment Sets:
Paragraph: 57 - A limitation on the amount of money a person may give to a candidate or campaign organization thus involves little direct restraint on his political communication, for it permits the symbolic expression of support evidenced by a contribution but does not in any way infringe the contributor's freedom to discuss candidates and issues. While contributions may result in political expression if spent by a candidate or an association to present views to the voters, the transformation of contributions into political debate involves speech by someone other than the contributor."
Notes:
Preferred Terms:
Phrase match: s freedom to discuss candidates and
Search time: 2017-05-08 13:46:36 Searcher: ars9ef Editor: tcs9pk Segmenter: tcs9pk
Paragraph: 80 - In sum, unlike the Buckley Court, I believe that contribution limits infringe as directly and as seriously upon freedom of political expression and association as do expenditure limits.
Notes:
Preferred Terms:
Phrase match: upon freedom of political expression and
Search time: 2017-10-13 13:47:37 Searcher: ars9ef Editor: ars9ef tcs9pk Segmenter: ars9ef tcs9pk
Paragraph: 81 - Instead, I begin with the premise that there is no constitutionally significant difference between campaign contributions and expenditures: both forms of speech are central to the First Amendment.
Notes:
Preferred Terms:
Phrase match: forms of speech are central to
Search time: 2017-11-10 14:59:38 Searcher: clm6u Editor: ars9ef tcs9pk Segmenter: ars9ef tcs9pk
Paragraph: 77 - Moreover, we have recently recognized that where the "proxy" speech is endorsed by those who give, that speech is a fully-protected exercise of the donors' associational rights.
Notes:
Preferred Terms:
Phrase match:
Search time: 2018-04-12 08:37:53 Searcher: clm6u Editor: ars9ef tcs9pk Segmenter: ars9ef tcs9pk
Paragraph: 81 - Instead, I begin with the premise that there is no constitutionally significant difference between campaign contributions and expenditures: both forms of speech are central to the First Amendment. Curbs on protected speech, we have repeatedly said, must be strictly scrutinized. See Federal Election Comm'n v. NCPAC, supra, at 501; Citizens Against Rent Control/Coalition for Fair Housing v. Berkeley, 454 U. S., at 294; First Nat. Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U. S. 765, 786 (1978). I am convinced that under traditional strict scrutiny, broad prophylactic caps on both spending and giving in the political process, like Section(s) 441a(d)(3), are unconstitutional.
Notes:
Preferred Terms:
Phrase match:
Search time: 2018-04-12 08:37:53 Searcher: clm6u Editor: ars9ef tcs9pk Segmenter: ars9ef tcs9pk