Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General of Missouri, et al. v. Shrink Missouri Government Pac et al. (528 U.S. 377)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided January 24, 2000 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 528 U.S. 377 · 120 S. Ct. 897
- Decided
- January 24, 2000
- Term
- October Term 1999
- Vote
- 6–3
- Majority author
- Justice Souter
- Issue area
- First Amendment
- Disposition
- Reversed and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Liberal
Opinion excerpt
Justice Souter delivered the opinion of the Court. The principal issues in this case are whether Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1 (1976) (per curiam), is authority for state limits on contributions to state political candidates and whether the federal limits approved in Buckley, with or without adjustment for inflation, define the scope of permissible state limitations today. We hold Buckley to be authority for comparable state regulation, which need not be pegged to Buckley’s, dollars. I In 1994, the Legislature of Missouri enacted Senate Bill 650 to restrict the permissible amounts of contributions to candidates for state office. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 130.032 (1994). Before the statute became effective, however, Missouri voters approved a ballot initiative with even stricter contribution limits, effective immediately. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit then held the initiative’s contribution limits unconstitutional under the First Amendment, Carver v. Nixon, 72 F. 3d 633, 645 (CA8 1995), cert. denied, 518 U. S. 1033 (1996), with the upshot that the previously dormant 1994 statute took effect. Shrink Missouri Government PAC v. Adams, 161 F. 3d 519, 520 (CA8 1998). As amended in 1997, that statute imposes contribution limits ranging from $250 to $1,000, depending on specified state office or size of constituency. See Mo. Rev. Stat. § 130.032.1 (1998 Cum.…
Excerpt of a 33,569-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.