TIP: Enclosing your search terms in quotes may help you find better results.

Legal News
19 Jan 2015
by William Helbling

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website] on Tuesday will hear oral arguments [hearing list, PDF] for the case Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar [SCOTUSblog backgrounder] which may undo campaign finance restrictions on state judicial candidates around the country. The plaintiff Lanell Williams-Yulee was a county judge candidate in Florida, who … [read more]


Legal News
16 Nov 2014
by William Helbling

[JURIST] The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit [official website] on Friday upheld [opinion, PDF] a Mississippi campaign finance law that requires disclosure of political contributions. The Mississippi campaign finance law [text] states that a person or group who contributes more than $200 to any ballot initiative must … [read more]


Legal News
2 Apr 2014
by Daniel Mullen

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website] ruled 5-4 Wednesday in McCutcheon v. FEC [SCOTUSblog backgrounder] that limits on overall campaign contributions by individual donors are unconstitutional. The court previously held in Buckley v. Valeo [opinion] that limits on contributions implicate First Amendment interests but that limits may be imposed … [read more]


Academic Commentary
4 Nov 2013

JURIST Guest Columnist Richard Briffault of the Columbia Law School says that McCutcheon v. FEC could upend a central element of campaign finance doctrine but even if the court's judgment is less radical than that, the erosion of restrictions on the electoral role of great private wealth will likely continue … [read more]


Legal News
8 Oct 2013
by Jaclyn Belczyk

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website] heard oral arguments [day call, PDF] Tuesday in a campaign finance case. In McCutcheon v. FEC [transcript, PDF; JURIST report] the court heard arguments on the constitutionality of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) [text] limit on individual campaign contributions. The court previously … [read more]


Features
20 Jul 2013
by Zachariah Rivenbark

The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), also known as the McCain-Feingold Act, is a federal law that amended FECA, changing the nature of campaign finance, specifically in the realm of soft money. FECA had previously been amended to limit individual contributions and expenditures by individuals and groups. As … [read more]


Features
20 Jul 2013
by Zachariah Rivenbark

Following the fallout of the Watergate scandal, the nation's leaders sought legislative means of curbing the corruption that riddled political campaigns. The avenue of such an attack was centered on restrictions of financial contributions to political candidates. Following the passage of FECA in 1971, a suit ensued which would challenge … [read more]


Features
20 Jul 2013
by Zachariah Rivenbark

In addition to the legislative acts highlighted above, the Taft-Hartley Act was adopted over the veto of US President Harry S. Truman in 1947. The law was aimed at curtailing the political actions and influence of labor unions in US federal elections. Specifically, the Act amended the National Labor Relations … [read more]


Academic Commentary
25 Feb 2013

JURIST Guest Columnist Justin Levitt of the Loyola Law School says that the Supreme Court's newest campaign finance case need not signal a sea change in the Court's campaign finance doctrine...For better or worse, a professor's thoughts are never far from final exams. The best exams, I think, test students' … [read more]


Legal News
20 Feb 2013
by Julia Zebley

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website] granted the first two cases [order list, PDF] of the 2013 term on Tuesday, including one on campaign finance [JURIST backgrounder]. In McCutcheon v. FEC [notice of appeal, PDF; case materials] the court will consider whether the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) [text] … [read more]


Student Commentary
6 Nov 2012

JURIST Guest Columnist, Matthew Skeen, University of Colorado Law School Class of 2013, argues that states have attempted to resist a constitutional interpretation regarding campaign finance through state-level legislation...This election cycle, independent groups have spent $675 million to support the campaigns of their chosen candidates. Putting aside the impacts of … [read more]


Student Commentary
3 Nov 2012

JURIST Guest Columnist Danielle Rudisill, Stetson University College of Law Class of 2013, argues for increased regulation regarding campaign finances...While the US Supreme Court has ruled a number of times that contributions to political parties can be constitutionally censored, perhaps the Court should look at the policy concerns that arise … [read more]


Academic Commentary
21 Jan 2012

JURIST Guest Columnist Josh Douglas of the University of Kentucky College of Law says that the Supreme Court's opinion in Citizens United v. FEC has created a doctrine that prevents states from justifying campaign finance laws on anticorruption grounds and forces them to justify them on the grounds of transparency … [read more]


Professional Commentary
28 Jun 2011

John Hardin Young, Counsel for Sandler Reiff Young & Lamb, PC, argues that the recent Supreme Court opinion striking down Arizona's campaign finance regulations leaves few options for future campaign finance reform...On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled that an Arizona law giving additional funds to publicly financed candidates if independent … [read more]


Legal News
19 Sep 2009
by Christian Ehret

[JURIST] The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit [official website] ruled [opinion, PDF] Friday that Federal Election Commission (FEC) [official website] regulations restricting the political spending of nonprofit groups violates the First Amendment. The suit was brought by pro-choice group EMILY'S List [advocacy website], which challenged … [read more]


Legal News
26 Jun 2006
by Jeannie Shawl

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] on Monday handed down decisions in five cases, including Randall v. Sorrell [Duke Law case backgrounder; JURIST report], consolidated with two other cases, where the Court struck down Vermont's Act 64 campaign law [text], which places strict caps on campaign … [read more]


Legal News
28 Feb 2006
by Holly Manges Jones

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website] on Tuesday heard oral arguments in Randall v. Sorrell [Duke Law case backgrounder; merit briefs] to decide whether Vermont's Act 64 campaign law [text], which places strict caps on campaign contributions and spending, should be upheld. The justices appeared skeptical of the state's … [read more]

Page 1 of 1

Latest Readers

@JURISTnews

Support JURIST

We rely on our readers to keep JURIST running

 Donate now!

© Copyright JURIST Legal News and Research Services, Inc., 2013.