They felt this way was because of the ruling in Buckley (Cite). In Buckley, the court ruled that limits on how much one can contribute to a campaign are allowed, in order to prevent corruption. In addition, they also argued that Illinois laws are more accommodating then most states, because a majority of states only allow one thousand dollar contributions to a campaign. Amici Curiae Brief in support of defendant at 1, Liberty Pac., v. Madison, No. 1:12-cv-05811 (Dis. Aug. 30, 2013). Furthermore, they argued that in Amici (Brief), the court concluded that contribution limits are constitutional, so long as they do not prevent candidates from collecting the recourses necessary for effective advocacy. Therefore, since these contribution limits would allow candidates to perform effective advocacy, and it would prevent corruption, the defendants argued that this law is constitutional. Amici Curiae Brief in support of defendant at 6, Liberty Pac., v. Madison, No. 1:12-cv-05811 (Dis. Aug. 30, 2013) The Defendants also argued that the law’s act of not placing restrictions on political party committees and legislative caucus committees is constitutional. The defendants argued that the Supreme court has had a history of upholding cases dealing with the constitutionality of allowing political parties and legislative caucuses to contribute more then any individual or PAC. One of these cases is McConnell (cites). In McConnell, the court stated that political parties may be treated more favorably when states limit campaign contributions because of the special position that political parties and legislative caucuses occupy in our political system. Therefore, the defendants argued that the law does not violate the Equal Protection Clause. Based on these arguments, the district court denied the motion for preliminary injunction. And the matter was taken up on appeal to the 7th circuit, which affirmed the lower court decision. Amici Curiae Brief in support of defendant at 10, Liberty Pac., v. Madison, No. 1:12-cv-05811 (Dis. Aug. 30, 2013) After the appellant court decision was rendered, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, in which defendant moved to dismiss the complaint. The court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs only surviving account in there complaint alleges that the laws treatment of legislative causes committees violates the first amendment by apposing the same restrictions on them as political party committees as appose to PACs and individuals. The plaintiffs list as an exhibit to their complaint a report written by
They felt this way was because of the ruling in Buckley (Cite). In Buckley, the court ruled that limits on how much one can contribute to a campaign are allowed, in order to prevent corruption. In addition, they also argued that Illinois laws are more accommodating then most states, because a majority of states only allow one thousand dollar contributions to a campaign. Amici Curiae Brief in support of defendant at 1, Liberty Pac., v. Madison, No. 1:12-cv-05811 (Dis. Aug. 30, 2013). Furthermore, they argued that in Amici (Brief), the court concluded that contribution limits are constitutional, so long as they do not prevent candidates from collecting the recourses necessary for effective advocacy. Therefore, since these contribution limits would allow candidates to perform effective advocacy, and it would prevent corruption, the defendants argued that this law is constitutional. Amici Curiae Brief in support of defendant at 6, Liberty Pac., v. Madison, No. 1:12-cv-05811 (Dis. Aug. 30, 2013) The Defendants also argued that the law’s act of not placing restrictions on political party committees and legislative caucus committees is constitutional. The defendants argued that the Supreme court has had a history of upholding cases dealing with the constitutionality of allowing political parties and legislative caucuses to contribute more then any individual or PAC. One of these cases is McConnell (cites). In McConnell, the court stated that political parties may be treated more favorably when states limit campaign contributions because of the special position that political parties and legislative caucuses occupy in our political system. Therefore, the defendants argued that the law does not violate the Equal Protection Clause. Based on these arguments, the district court denied the motion for preliminary injunction. And the matter was taken up on appeal to the 7th circuit, which affirmed the lower court decision. Amici Curiae Brief in support of defendant at 10, Liberty Pac., v. Madison, No. 1:12-cv-05811 (Dis. Aug. 30, 2013) After the appellant court decision was rendered, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, in which defendant moved to dismiss the complaint. The court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs only surviving account in there complaint alleges that the laws treatment of legislative causes committees violates the first amendment by apposing the same restrictions on them as political party committees as appose to PACs and individuals. The plaintiffs list as an exhibit to their complaint a report written by