Test 2: Cases Flashcards
(46 cards)
bellotti v first national bank: Summary
State prohibits corporations from spending money on promotions that will endorse or oppose local referendums.
Bellotti V. first national bank: Rule of Law
The government may not restrict the topics of speech for corporations.
Bellotti v first national bank: Issue
Is the state regulation of corporate speech constitutional?
Bellotti v. First National Bank: Holding
No. The Court reversed the state supreme court. It is unconstitutional to restrict corporate speech to items that are “materially affecting” its business.
Bellotti V. First National Bank: Justice Count
Opinion: Powell (W),Burger, Stewart, Blackmun, Stevens
Dissent: White (W), Brennan, Marshall, Rehnquist
Bellotti V. First National Bank: Justice Count
Opinion: Powell (W),Burger, Stewart, Blackmun, Stevens
Dissent: White (W), Brennan, Marshall, Rehnquist
MCCUTCHEON v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION: Issue
Is the two-year aggregate campaign contribution limit constitutional under the First Amendment?
MCCUTCHEON v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION: Issue
Is the two-year aggregate campaign contribution limit constitutional under the First Amendment?
MCCUTCHEON v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION: Summary
McCutcheon and the other plaintiffs sued the Federal Election Commission, arguing that the aggregate limit violated the First Amendment by failing to serve a “cognizable government interest” and being prohibitively low. The district court held that the aggregate limit served government interests by preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption and was set at a reasonable limit.
MCCUTCHEON v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION: Holding
Aggregate contribution limits to campaign finance are unconstitutional.
MCCUTCHEON v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION: Justice Count
Opinion: Roberts (W), Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, ALito
Dissent: Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan
Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce: Summary
This case raises the issue of the constitutionality of a Michigan Statute, which prohibits corporate political expenditures, with the exception of those expenditures made from a segregated fund.
Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce: Rule of Law
When a State seeks to regulate corporate political expenditures, it is not in abrogation of the corporation’s First Amendment constitutional rights, if the state sets guidelines regarding the origin of the funds.
Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce: Issue
This case considers whether Michigan’s restrictions on corporate political expenditures can be constitutionally applied to the Appellee
Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce: Holding
The court held that the statutory scheme provided a means for the Appellee to express itself politically and thus there was no abrogation of Appellee’s rights in requiring it to follow the statute.
Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce: Justice Count
Opinion: Rehnquist, Brennan, White, Marshall (W), Blackmun, Stevens
Dissent: O’Connor, Scalia, Kennedy (W)
Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce: Justice Count
Opinion: Rehnquist, Brennan, White, Marshall (W), Blackmun, Stevens
Dissent: O’Connor, Scalia, Kennedy (W)
Randall v. Sorrell: Rule of Law
(1) Limiting the expenditure allowable by a candidate for political office during a political election cycle is against the First Amendment guarantee of free speech.
(2) The limit of $200-$400 which is allowed by the state of Vermont as contribution to a candidate’s election campaign expenditure by a person, party or political association is so low as to infringe upon First Amendment rights.
Randall v. Sorrell: Rule of Law
(1) Limiting the expenditure allowable by a candidate for political office during a political election cycle is against the First Amendment guarantee of free speech.
(2) The limit of $200-$400 which is allowed by the state of Vermont as contribution to a candidate’s election campaign expenditure by a person, party or political association is so low as to infringe upon First Amendment rights.
Randall v. Sorrell: Issue
(1) Is it constitutional to set spending limits for an election campaign under the First Amendment?
(2) Is the contribution limit too low to allow freedom of expression under the First Amendment?
Randall v. Sorrell: Holding
1) Yes. The constitution does not allow freedom of political speech to be curbed by a limit on the expenditure a political candidate may spend on his election. In Buckley v. Valeo, the court ruled that financial expenditure to influence the election of a candidate is free speech under the First Amendment and it cannot be limited without restricting speech. Under that precedent the present case is controlled by that ruling since there is here no special circumstance requiring the Court to reverse the verdict in Buckley, especially since the limits set by Vermont are in substance the same as those in the earlier case.
(2) Yes. The arbitrary limits of $200-$400 contribution per candidate are so low as to violate the constitution. Some degree of restriction on the contributions allowed to a candidate is acceptable under law, but the danger here is that the effectiveness of the campaign is seriously affected, causing a limitation on free speech out of proportion to the government’s interest. The conclusion is supported no only by the low dollar amount but by the result of the law as seen in the various political groups and in the level of activity by volunteers in Vermont elections.
Randall v. Sorrell: Dissent
(Stevens, J.) (1) deserves a negative verdict as it concerns limits on political expenditure. While precedent is important, Buckley is a ruling which should be overturned since it reversed a practice of long standing on campaign expenditure. Another reason for demanding a negative ruling on (1) is that it would free candidates from the immobilizing burden of having to raise campaign funds.
(Souter, J.) The contribution limits deserve to be upheld. The decision on limiting spending on an election campaign should be referred to the lower courts for them to decide as to whether this was the least restrictive means for Vermont to serve its interests.
Ognibene v. Parkes: Issue
NY Campaign Finance Laws are challenged.ban on direct corporate contributions to city candidates to include LLCs and similar entities.
Ognibene v. Parkes: Holding
1)Anti-corruption interest
2)Anti-distortion interest; stemming from, “special characteristics of the corporate structure that threaten the integrity of the political process… by permitting corporations to use resources amassed in the economic marketplace to obtain an unfair advantage in the political marketplace”
3)Dissenting shareholder interest; protecting individuals’ investments in the corporation from being used to support political candidates these individuals may oppose.
4)Anti-circumvention interest; preventing the evasion of valid contribution limits.
Entity ban is CLOSELY DRAWN based on corruption and circumvention interests!
