Editing First Amendment Sullivan/Outline
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 910: | Line 910: | ||
o <u>Level of scrutiny</u> applied: Unclear; seems perhaps to be intermediate scrutiny for contributions and strict scrutiny for expenditures | o <u>Level of scrutiny</u> applied: Unclear; seems perhaps to be intermediate scrutiny for contributions and strict scrutiny for expenditures | ||
o (a) '''<u>Campaign contributions</u>''' ('' | o (a) '''<u>Campaign contributions</u>''' (''Buckley''): Congress '''may''' limit consistent with the 1st Amendment, so long as limitations (i) justified by sufficient government interest in (ii) preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption | ||
§ Application ('' | § Application (''Buckley''): $1000 limit on direct contributions to candidates serves to prevent corruption/appearance of corruption b/c large contributions often given to secure quid pro quos from officeholders | ||
§ Application (''McConnell''): <u>Soft money contributions</u> to national party committees lead to access peddling and give rise to an appearance of corruption and so bannable under ''Buckley'' | § Application (''McConnell''): <u>Soft money contributions</u> to national party committees lead to access peddling and give rise to an appearance of corruption and so bannable under ''Buckley'' | ||
Line 1,036: | Line 1,036: | ||
o NOTE: Court says that because BCRA § 203 burdens political speech, it is subject to strict scrutiny and, under ''McConnell'', passes strict scrutiny only to the extent it regulates express advocacy or its functional equivalent | o NOTE: Court says that because BCRA § 203 burdens political speech, it is subject to strict scrutiny and, under ''McConnell'', passes strict scrutiny only to the extent it regulates express advocacy or its functional equivalent | ||
· ''Republican Party of Minnesota v. White'' (U.S. 2002, p.941):Minnesota law said candidates for judicial office could not announce views on contested legal issues | · ''Republican Party of Minnesota v. White'' (U.S. 2002, p.941):Minnesota law said candidates for judicial office could not announce views on contested legal issues | ||
=== Obscenity=== | === Obscenity=== |