attorney who argued mcconnell v. fec

What is the significance of McConnell v FEC?

McConnell v. FEC. McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, 540 U.S. 93 (2003), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of most of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), often referred to as the McCain – Feingold Act. The case takes its name from Senator Mitch McConnell,...

What was the Supreme Court decision in McConnell v McConnell?

McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, 540 U.S. 93 (2003), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of most of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), often referred to as the McCain – Feingold Act.

What is the Mitch McConnell Case?

The case takes its name from Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky, and the Federal Election Commission, the federal agency that oversees U.S. campaign finance laws. It was partially overruled by Citizens United v.

What was the Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v FEC?

Citizens United v. FEC On January 21, 2010, the Supreme Court issued a ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission overruling an earlier decision, Austin v. Michigan State Chamber of Commerce ( Austin ), that allowed prohibitions on independent expenditures by corporations. The Court also overruled the part of McConnell v.

What was the dissenting opinion in Citizens United v FEC?

In his dissenting opinion, Associate Justice John Paul Stevens declared that the court's ruling represented "a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self government."

What did the plaintiffs argue about soft money in McConnell v Federal Election Commission?

National party committees' use of soft money. The Court found that this provision did not violate the Constitution because the governmental interest in "preventing the actual or apparent corruption of federal candidates and officeholders" was sufficiently important to justify contribution limits.

Was McConnell v FEC overturned?

United States District Court for the District of Columbia affirmed in part, reversed in part. The case takes its name from Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky, and the Federal Election Commission, the federal agency that oversees U.S. campaign finance laws. It was partially overruled by Citizens United v.

What was the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United vs FEC 2010?

In Citizens United v. FEC, the Supreme Court asserted that corporations are people and removed reasonable campaign contribution limits, allowing a small group of wealthy donors and special interests to use dark money to influence elections.

Is soft money legal?

Since 1991, FEC rules have required parties to report most soft money. In 1996, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that soft money could be spent on such things as television advertising, thereby increasing the demand for such funds. The soft money system has grown from $86 million in 1992 to $262 million in 1996.

What is the term dark money mean?

In the politics of the United States, dark money refers to political spending by nonprofit organizations—for example, 501(c)(4) (social welfare) 501(c)(5) (unions) and 501(c)(6) (trade association) groups—that are not required to disclose their donors.

What did the Supreme Court determine to be permissible in Citizens United v Federal Election Commission quizlet?

The Court ruled, 5-4, that the First Amendment prohibits limits on corporate funding of independent broadcasts in candidate elections.

What was accomplished by the McCain Feingold Act?

The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2002, also known as "McCain-Feingold", is the most recent major federal law affecting campaign finance, the key provisions of which prohibited unregulated contributions (commonly referred to as "soft money") to national political parties and limited the use of corporate and ...

Why did Citizens United sue the FEC?

Citizens United planned to make the film available within 30 days of the 2008 primary elections, but feared that the film would be covered by the Act's ban on corporate-funded electioneering communications that are the functional equivalent of express advocacy, thus subjecting the corporation to civil and criminal ...

What is the significance of the 2010 Supreme Court decision Citizens United v Federal Election Commission quizlet?

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), is a US constitutional law case, in which the United States Supreme Court held that the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting political independent expenditures by corporations, associations, or labor unions.

Did the Supreme Court ruled correctly in Citizens United v. FEC?

Federal Election Commission that held that corporations could be banned from making electioneering communications. The Court upheld the reporting and disclaimer requirements for independent expenditures and electioneering communications. The Court's ruling did not affect the ban on corporate contributions.

How many pages are in the Kennedy and Rehnquist opinion?

Kennedy and Rehnquist issued a 68-page opinion with an appendix, concurring in part and dissenting in part, noting that BCRA forces "speakers to abandon their own preference for speaking through parties and organizations.".

What is the McCain Feingold Act?

93 (2003), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of most of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), often referred to as the McCain – Feingold Act.

Why did Scalia write a separate opinion?

Scalia issued a separate 19-page dissenting opinion, a "few words of [his] own," because of the "extraordinary importance" of the cases. He argued this standard is an example of incumbents attempting to protect themselves, noting incumbents raise three-times as much hard-money.

How long is the District of Columbia opinion?

The Federal District Court for the District of Columbia's opinion is likely the longest opinion ever issued by a court in the United States: the opinion was 743 pages.

What was the Supreme Court's decision on McCain-Feingold?

On December 10, 2003, it issued a complicated decision totaling 272 pages in length, that, with a 5-4 majority, upheld the key provisions of McCain-Feingold including (1) the "electioneering communication" provisions (which required disclosure of and prohibited the use of corporate and union treasury funds to pay for or broadcast cable and satellite ads clearly identifying a federal candidate targeted to the candidate's electorate within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election); and (2) the "soft money" ban (which prohibited federal parties, candidates, and officeholders from raising or spending funds not in compliance with contribution restrictions, and prohibited state parties from using such "soft money" in connection with federal elections).

Why was the Federal Court of Appeal's decision to regulate the law necessary?

In response to challenges that the law was too broad and unnecessarily regulated conduct that had not been shown to cause corruption (such as advertisements paid for by corporations or unions), the Court found that such regulation was necessary to prevent the groups from circumventing the law.

When was the McCain-Feingold bill passed?

In early 2002 , a multi-year effort by Senators John McCain and Russell Feingold to reform the way money is raised and spent on political campaigns culminated in the passage of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (the so-called McCain-Feingold bill).

At a Glance

The lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2002 - eleven suits brought by more than 80 plaintiffs - were consolidated as McConnell v. FEC . The defendants in the case were the U.S.

About this Case

The lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 - eleven suits brought by more than 80 plaintiffs - were consolidated as McConnell v. FEC . The defendants in the case were the U.S.

What is Citizens United's request for EC disclosure?

Additionally, the plaintiff requests that the corporate and union EC funding restriction be declared unconstitutional both on its face and as applied to plaintiff’s movie. Citizens United seeks preliminary and permanent injunctions preventing the Commission from enforcing each of these provisions. The plaintiffs also request costs and attorneys fees and any other appropriate relief.

What was the Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission?

Federal Election Commission overruling an earlier decision, Austin v. Michigan State Chamber of Commerce ( Austin ), that allowed prohibitions on independent expenditures by corporations. The Court also overruled the part of McConnell v. Federal Election Commission that held that corporations could be banned from making electioneering communications. The Court upheld the reporting and disclaimer requirements for independent expenditures and electioneering communications. The Court’s ruling did not affect the ban on corporate contributions.

What is the Federal Election Campaign Act?

The Federal Election Campaign Act ("the Act") prohibits corporations and labor unions from using their general treasury funds to make electioneering communications or for speech that expressly advocates the election or defeat of a federal candidate. 2 U.S.C. §441b. An electioneering communication is generally defined as "any broadcast, ...

How long does it take to get electioneering communications?

An electioneering communication is generally defined as "any broadcast, cable or satellite communication" that is "publicly distributed" and refers to a clearly identified federal candidate and is made within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election. 2 U.S.C. §434 (f) (3) (A) and 11 CFR 100.29 (a) (2).

When was the Citizens United injunction denied?

Preliminary injunction decision. On January 15, 2008, the District Court denied Citizens United’s motion for a preliminary injunction, in which Citizens United requested that the court prevent the FEC from enforcing its electioneering communications provisions. The district court denied Citizens United’s motion for a preliminary injunction.

What is the movie about Hillary Clinton?

Citizens United has produced a film entitled "Hillary: The Movie" about Senator Hillary Clinton. Citizens United intends to broadcast television ads promoting "Hillary: The Movie" and wishes to make the film available in theaters, through DVD sales and via home viewing through cable video-on-demand systems.

What is Citizens United?

Citizens United is a nonprofit membership organization registered with the IRS under 26 U.S.C. §501 (c) (4) . One of Citizens United’s activities is the production and distribution of political films. Citizens United has produced a film entitled "Hillary: The Movie" about Senator Hillary Clinton.