ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Legal Commentary Blogs -> The Volokh Conspiracy

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Legal Commentary

: The Volokh Conspiracy

D.C. Circuit Strikes Down Caps on Contributions to Independent Expenditure Committees

By Eugene Volokh

ADVERTISEMENTS

The case is SpeechNow.org v. FEC (en banc) (unanimous):

The contribution limits of 2 U.S.C. § 441a(a)(1)(C) and 441a(a)(3) violate the First Amendment by preventing plaintiffs from donating to SpeechNow in excess of the limits and by prohibiting SpeechNow from accepting donations in excess of the limits. We should be clear, however, that we only decide these questions as applied to contributions to SpeechNow, an independent expenditure-only group. Our holding does not affect, for example, § 441a(a)(3)?s limits on direct contributions to candidates.

Sounds quite right to me, and entirely consistent with the Court?s past jurisprudence on the right to expressive association, which goes back 50 years to the NAACP cases. The right to speak, about candidates, ballot measures, and other matters, must include the right of people to pool their resources in order to speak effectively ? not just the right to speak by oneself, or using just one?s own resources. But contributions to candidates are a different matter, for reasons I discuss in Part III of this article.

The court also upheld various organizational, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements: ?SpeechNow, as we have said, intends to comply with the disclosure requirements applicable to those who make independent expenditures but are not organized as political committees.... Because SpeechNow intends only to make independent expenditures, the additional reporting requirements that the FEC would impose on SpeechNow if it were a political committee are minimal.... Nor do the organizational requirements that SpeechNow protests, such as designating a treasurer and retaining records, impose much of an additional burden upon SpeechNow, especially given the relative simplicity with which SpeechNow intends to operate.?

Thanks to Josh Blackman?s blog for the pointer.


Copyright © 2010
This feed is for personal, non-commercial use only.
The use of this feed on other websites breaches copyright. If this content is not in your news reader, it makes the page you are viewing an infringement of the copyright. (Digital Fingerprint:
)

Full post as published by The Volokh Conspiracy on March 26, 2010 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0149 secs (new cache)