Buckley v. Valeo: Difference between revisions
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
SCOTUS struck down the limit on how much money a candidate may spend on their (her/his) own campaign. | SCOTUS struck down the limit on how much money a candidate may spend on their (her/his) own campaign. | ||
The Speaker of the House & Senate President ''pro tempore'' may not appoint Commissioners to the FEC. | |||
|case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | |case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | ||
|link=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/424/1/ | |link=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/424/1/ | ||
Revision as of 16:18, March 14, 2023
| Buckley v. Valeo | |
| Court | Supreme Court of the United States |
|---|---|
| Citation | |
| Date decided | January 29, 1976 |
Facts
In the early 1970s, Congress capped the individual contributions to federal candidates for elected office at $1,000.
The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA), as amended in 1974, set up the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to enforce this law.Procedural History
Senator James Buckley (plaintiff) filed a lawsuit against Francis Valeo (defendant), a representative of the FEC.
The federal district court and the court of appeals held that the individual contribution limit to candidates doesn't abridge the 1st Amendments freedom of expression [via monetary contribution].Issues
Does the appointment process for the 6 members of the FEC violate the Appointments clause of the US Constitution (Article 2, Section 2)?
Holding
SCOTUS upholds the limit on individual contributions.
SCOTUS struck down the limit on how much money a candidate may spend on their (her/his) own campaign.
The Speaker of the House & Senate President pro tempore may not appoint Commissioners to the FEC.
