Us government
Ms.Crouse
Victoria Liu
5/8/2017
Supreme Court case
The case Nixon, Attorney General of Missouri, et al. V. Shrink Missouri Government PAC et al. was argued on the 5th of October, 1999. The respondents, Shrink Missouri PAC as a political action committee and Zev David Fredman who was a candidate for Missouri state auditor eyeing the 1998 Republican Party nominations alleged in a suit they filed that a statute in Missouri limiting contributions in the range of $275 to $1075 to candidates running for state office was in violation of their First and Fourteenth Amendments constitutional rights ("Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC." n.d). Moreover, a ceiling of $1000 was imposed on an individual’s contribution to a candidate interested in a federal office in 1976 by Buckley v. Valeo, but it gave room to periodic adjustments …show more content…
Shrink Missouri Government PAC." n.d). Looking at the principal issues pertaining to the case, The Supreme Court upheld the authority of Buckley for analogous state regulation that was not to be associated with the Buckley's dollars. The court membership had Chief Justice, William Rehnquist sitting with Associate Justices that included Sandra Day O’Connor, John P. Stevens, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Clarence Thomas("Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC." n.d). The respondents’ arguments were done by Professor D. Bruce La Pierre, while Missouri State was represented by Attorney General, Jay Nixon. The 6-3 decision in favor of the Missouri State Government was read by David Souter, with Justices Clarence Thomas, Anthony Kennedy and Antonin Scalia dissenting by voting against Buckley as an infringement on First Amendment that upholds right to speech. The majority did not find the Missouri statute to violate the First
Ms.Crouse
Victoria Liu
5/8/2017
Supreme Court case
The case Nixon, Attorney General of Missouri, et al. V. Shrink Missouri Government PAC et al. was argued on the 5th of October, 1999. The respondents, Shrink Missouri PAC as a political action committee and Zev David Fredman who was a candidate for Missouri state auditor eyeing the 1998 Republican Party nominations alleged in a suit they filed that a statute in Missouri limiting contributions in the range of $275 to $1075 to candidates running for state office was in violation of their First and Fourteenth Amendments constitutional rights ("Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC." n.d). Moreover, a ceiling of $1000 was imposed on an individual’s contribution to a candidate interested in a federal office in 1976 by Buckley v. Valeo, but it gave room to periodic adjustments …show more content…
Shrink Missouri Government PAC." n.d). Looking at the principal issues pertaining to the case, The Supreme Court upheld the authority of Buckley for analogous state regulation that was not to be associated with the Buckley's dollars. The court membership had Chief Justice, William Rehnquist sitting with Associate Justices that included Sandra Day O’Connor, John P. Stevens, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Clarence Thomas("Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC." n.d). The respondents’ arguments were done by Professor D. Bruce La Pierre, while Missouri State was represented by Attorney General, Jay Nixon. The 6-3 decision in favor of the Missouri State Government was read by David Souter, with Justices Clarence Thomas, Anthony Kennedy and Antonin Scalia dissenting by voting against Buckley as an infringement on First Amendment that upholds right to speech. The majority did not find the Missouri statute to violate the First