davis
federal
election
commission
argued
april
decided
june
limits
amount
contributions
house
representatives
candidate
authorized
committee
may
receive
individual
amount
party
may
devote
coordinated
campaign
expenditures
normally
apply
equally
competitors
seat
authorized
committees
however
bipartisan
campaign
reform
act
bcra
part
millionaire
amendment
fundamentally
alters
scheme
result
candidate
expenditure
personal
funds
opposition
personal
funds
amount
opfa
exceeds
opfa
statistic
comparing
competing
candidates
personal
expenditures
taking
account
certain
fundraising
candidate
personal
expenditure
causes
opfa
pass
new
asymmetrical
regulatory
scheme
comes
play
candidate
remains
subject
normal
limitations
opponent
candidate
may
receive
individual
contributions
treble
normal
limit
individuals
reached
normal
limit
aggregate
contributions
may
accept
coordinated
party
expenditures
without
limit
see
calculating
opfa
requires
certain
information
candidate
campaign
assets
personal
expenditures
requires
file
initial
declaration
intent
revealing
amount
personal
funds
candidate
intends
spend
excess
make
additional
disclosures
candidates
national
parties
federal
election
commission
fec
personal
expenditures
exceed
certain
benchmarks
appellant
davis
candidate
house
seat
lost
times
incumbent
notified
fec
election
compliance
intended
spend
million
personal
funds
fec
informed
reason
believe
violated
failing
report
personal
expenditures
campaign
filed
suit
declaration
unconstitutional
injunction
preventing
fec
enforcing
section
election
district
concluded
sua
sponte
davis
standing
rejected
claims
merits
granted
fec
summary
judgment
held
jurisdiction
hear
davis
appeal
pp
davis
standing
challenge
disclosure
requirements
filed
suit
already
declared
candidacy
forced
disclose
opponent
intended
spend
personal
funds
also
faced
imminent
threat
follow
disclosure
notifications
passed
mark
securing
declaration
unconstitutional
injunction
enforcement
spared
making
disclosures
also
removed
real
threat
fec
pursue
enforcement
action
based
alleged
violations
campaign
davis
also
standing
challenge
asymmetrical
contribution
limits
standing
inquiry
focuses
whether
party
invoking
jurisdiction
requisite
stake
outcome
suit
filed
see
friends
earth
laidlaw
environmental
services
toc
party
facing
prospective
injury
standing
threatened
injury
real
immediate
direct
see
los
angeles
lyons
davis
faced
requisite
injury
filed
suit
already
declared
candidacy
intent
spend
personal
funds
general
election
campaign
whose
onset
rapidly
approaching
section
shortly
burden
personal
expenditure
allowing
opponent
receive
contributions
favorable
terms
indication
opponent
forgo
opportunity
pp
fec
argument
lacks
jurisdiction
davis
claims
moot
also
fails
federal
election
wisconsin
right
life
wrtl
rejected
similar
claim
mootness
finding
case
fit
comfortably
within
established
exception
mootness
disputes
capable
repetition
yet
evading
review
exception
applies
challenged
action
duration
short
fully
litigated
prior
cessation
expiration
reasonable
expectation
complaining
party
subject
action
ibid
first
despite
bcra
command
case
expedited
greatest
possible
extent
davis
request
case
resolved
election
case
resolved
election
see
second
fec
conceded
davis
claim
capable
repetition
planned
another
bid
house
seat
subsequently
made
public
statement
expressing
intent
see
pp
sections
violate
first
amendment
elevated
contribution
limits
applied
across
board
candidates
davis
constitutional
basis
challenging
section
however
raises
limits
candidates
candidate
expenditure
personal
funds
causes
opfa
threshold
exceeded
never
upheld
constitutionality
law
imposes
different
contribution
limits
candidates
competing
agrees
davis
scheme
impermissibly
burdens
first
amendment
right
spend
money
campaign
speech
buckley
valeo
soundly
rejected
cap
candidate
expenditure
personal
funds
finance
campaign
speech
holding
candidate
first
amendment
right
vigorously
tirelessly
advocate
election
cap
personal
expenditures
imposes
substantial
clea
direc
restraint
right
found
cap
issue
justified
primary
governmental
interest
prevention
actual
apparent
corruption
political
process
ancillary
interest
equalizing
relative
financial
resources
candidates
competing
elective
office
buckley
instructive
bcra
impose
cap
candidate
expenditure
personal
funds
imposes
unprecedented
penalty
candidate
robustly
exercises
first
amendment
right
requiring
choose
right
engage
unfettered
political
speech
subjection
discriminatory
fundraising
limitations
resulting
drag
first
amendment
rights
constitutional
simply
attaches
consequence
statutorily
imposed
choice
distinguished
burden
justified
governmental
interest
eliminating
corruption
perception
corruption
see
interest
leveling
electoral
opportunities
candidates
different
personal
wealth
justify
asymmetrical
limits
see
never
recognized
interest
legitimate
objective
ominous
implications
voters
authority
evaluate
strengths
candidates
competing
office
finally
rejects
government
argument
justified
ameliorates
deleterious
effects
resulting
tight
limits
federal
election
law
places
individual
campaign
contributions
coordinated
party
expenditures
whatever
argument
merits
original
matter
fundamentally
war
buckley
analysis
expenditure
contributions
limits
applied
subsequent
cases
pp
unconstitutional
disclosure
requirements
designed
implement
asymmetrical
contribution
limits
well
ompelled
disclosure
seriously
infringe
privacy
association
belief
guaranteed
first
amendment
buckley
closely
scrutinizes
requirements
significant
encroachments
survive
must
correlation
relation
governmental
interest
information
required
disclosed
governmental
interest
must
reflect
seriousness
burden
first
amendment
rights
ibid
given
unconstitutionality
burden
imposed
requirements
justified
supp
reversed
remanded
alito
delivered
opinion
roberts
scalia
kennedy
thomas
joined
stevens
souter
ginsburg
breyer
joined
part
ii
stevens
filed
opinion
concurring
part
dissenting
part
souter
ginsburg
breyer
joined
part
ii
ginsburg
filed
opinion
concurring
part
dissenting
part
breyer
joined
jack
davis
appellant
federal
election
commission
appeal
district
district
columbia
june
justice
alito
delivered
opinion
justice
stevens
justice
souter
justice
ginsburg
justice
breyer
joined
part
ii
appeal
consider
constitutionality
federal
election
law
provisions
certain
circumstances
impose
different
campaign
contribution
limits
candidates
competing
congressional
seat
federal
law
limits
amount
money
candidate
house
representatives
candidate
authorized
committee
may
receive
individual
well
amount
candidate
party
may
devote
coordinated
campaign
expenditures
ed
usual
circumstances
restrictions
apply
competitors
seat
authorized
committees
contributions
individual
donors
election
cycle
subject
cap
currently
set
see
fed
reg
addition
funds
may
accepted
individual
whose
aggregate
contributions
candidates
committees
election
cycle
reached
legal
limit
currently
see
fed
reg
candidate
also
may
accept
general
election
coordinated
expenditures
national
state
political
party
committees
exceed
imposed
limit
see
currently
limit
candidates
one
house
seat
fed
reg
section
bipartisan
campaign
reform
act
bcra
stat
part
millionaire
amendment
fundamentally
alters
scheme
result
candidate
expenditure
personal
funds
opposition
personal
funds
amount
opfa
exceeds
opfa
simple
terms
statistic
compares
expenditure
personal
funds
competing
candidates
also
takes
account
degree
certain
see
candidate
expenditure
personal
funds
causes
opfa
pass
mark
convenience
candidates
referred
new
asymmetrical
regulatory
scheme
comes
play
candidate
remains
subject
limitations
noted
candidate
opponent
candidate
may
receive
individual
contributions
treble
normal
limit
rather
current
even
individuals
reached
normal
aggregate
contributions
cap
may
accept
coordinated
party
expenditures
without
limit
see
candidate
receipts
exceed
opfa
prior
limits
revived
candidate
spend
contributions
received
asymmetrical
limits
must
return
order
calculate
opfa
certain
information
needed
candidate
campaign
assets
personal
expenditures
section
thus
requires
candidates
make
three
types
disclosures
first
within
days
entering
race
candidate
must
file
eclaration
intent
revealing
amount
personal
funds
candidate
intends
spend
excess
candidate
intend
cross
threshold
may
simply
declare
intent
spend
personal
funds
cfr
second
within
hours
crossing
becoming
obligated
cross
mark
candidate
must
file
nitial
notification
third
candidate
must
file
dditional
notification
within
hours
making
becoming
obligated
make
additional
expenditure
using
personal
funds
initial
additional
notifications
must
provide
date
amount
expenditure
personal
funds
notifications
must
filed
federal
election
commission
fec
candidates
seat
national
parties
candidates
failure
comply
reporting
requirements
may
result
civil
criminal
penalties
candidate
candidate
committee
face
less
extensive
disclosure
requirements
within
hours
receiving
initial
additional
notification
filed
opponent
candidate
must
provide
notice
fec
national
state
committees
candidate
party
candidate
concludes
based
newly
acquired
information
opfa
passed
mark
cfr
addition
additional
contributions
candidate
authorized
receive
pursuant
asymmetrical
limitations
scheme
equals
opfa
candidate
must
notify
fec
appropriate
national
state
committees
within
hours
ii
candidate
must
also
provide
notice
regarding
refunds
excess
funds
funds
received
increased
limits
used
campaign
part
political
parties
must
notify
fec
candidate
support
within
hours
making
expenditures
exceed
normal
limit
coordinated
party
expenditures
appellant
jack
davis
democratic
candidate
house
representatives
new
york
congressional
district
elections
lost
incumbent
brief
davis
discloses
spent
million
principally
funds
campaign
brief
appellant
reports
spending
million
came
personal
funds
opponent
spent
personal
funds
indeed
although
opfa
calculation
provided
opportunity
davis
opponent
raise
nearly
million
asymmetrical
limits
davis
opponent
adhered
normal
contribution
limits
davis
candidacy
began
march
filed
fec
statement
candidacy
compliance
declared
intended
spend
million
personal
funds
general
election
two
months
later
anticipation
expenditure
consequences
davis
filed
suit
fec
requesting
declared
unconstitutional
fec
enjoined
enforcing
election
davis
declared
candidacy
filed
suit
fec
general
counsel
notified
reason
believe
violated
failing
report
personal
expenditures
campaign
fec
proposed
conciliation
agreement
davis
pay
substantial
civil
penalty
davis
responded
agreeing
toll
limitations
period
fec
enforcement
action
resolution
suit
davis
filed
action
district
district
columbia
panel
convened
bcra
stat
note
following
davis
requested
case
decided
general
election
campaign
began
september
fec
opposed
request
asserting
need
extensive
discovery
request
denied
ultimately
parties
filed
summary
judgment
ruling
motions
district
began
addressing
davis
standing
sua
sponte
concluded
davis
standing
rejected
claims
merits
granted
summary
judgment
fec
supp
davis
invoked
bcra
exclusive
avenue
appellate
review
direct
appeal
note
following
deferred
full
consideration
jurisdiction
reverse
ii
like
district
must
first
ensure
jurisdiction
hear
davis
appeal
article
iii
restricts
federal
courts
resolution
cases
controversies
arizonans
official
english
arizona
restriction
requires
party
invoking
federal
jurisdiction
standing
personal
interest
must
exist
commencement
litigation
friends
earth
laidlaw
environmental
services
toc
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
enough
requisite
interest
exist
outset
qualify
case
fit
adjudication
actual
controversy
must
extant
stages
review
merely
time
complaint
filed
arizonans
official
english
supra
fec
argues
davis
appeal
fails
present
constitutional
case
controversy
davis
lacks
standing
claims
moot
address
issues
turn
noted
requirement
claimant
standing
essential
unchanging
part
requirement
article
iii
lujan
defenders
wildlife
see
also
arizonans
official
english
supra
qualify
standing
claimant
must
present
injury
concrete
particularized
actual
imminent
fairly
traceable
defendant
challenged
behavior
likely
redressed
favorable
ruling
lujan
supra
district
held
parties
dispute
davis
possesses
standing
challenge
disclosure
requirements
davis
filed
suit
already
declared
candidacy
forced
disclose
opponent
intended
spend
personal
funds
time
davis
faced
imminent
threat
follow
disclosure
notifications
fact
passed
mark
securing
declaration
requirements
unconstitutional
injunction
enforcement
spared
making
disclosures
relief
also
removed
real
threat
fec
pursue
enforcement
action
based
alleged
violations
campaign
result
davis
possesses
standing
challenge
disclosure
requirement
fact
davis
standing
challenge
necessarily
mean
also
standing
challenge
scheme
contribution
limitations
applies
comes
play
tanding
dispensed
gross
lewis
casey
rather
plaintiff
must
demonstrate
standing
claim
seeks
press
form
sought
daimlerchrysler
cuno
quoting
friends
earth
supra
light
principles
fec
argues
davis
lacks
standing
attack
asymmetrical
limits
davis
commenced
action
opponent
yet
qualified
asymmetrical
limits
later
opponent
qualify
take
advantage
limits
chose
accordingly
fec
argues
cause
davis
injury
proof
required
establish
standing
increases
suit
proceeds
see
lujan
supra
standing
inquiry
remains
focused
whether
party
invoking
jurisdiction
requisite
stake
outcome
suit
filed
friends
earth
supra
arizonans
official
english
supra
noted
injury
required
standing
need
actualized
party
facing
prospective
injury
standing
sue
threatened
injury
real
immediate
direct
los
angeles
lyons
see
also
babbitt
farm
workers
plaintiff
may
challenge
prospective
operation
statute
presents
realistic
impending
threat
direct
injury
davis
faced
injury
operation
filed
suit
davis
declared
candidacy
intent
spend
personal
funds
general
election
campaign
whose
onset
rapidly
approaching
section
shortly
burden
expenditure
personal
funds
allowing
opponent
receive
contributions
favorable
terms
indication
opponent
forgo
opportunity
indeed
record
summary
judgment
indicated
candidates
opportunity
receive
expanded
contributions
done
app
circumstances
conclude
davis
faced
requisite
injury
filed
suit
standing
challenge
provision
asymmetrical
contribution
scheme
fec
mootness
argument
also
fails
case
closely
resembles
federal
election
wisconsin
right
life
wisconsin
right
life
wrtl
nonprofit
ideological
advocacy
corporation
wished
run
radio
tv
ads
within
days
washington
primary
contrary
restriction
imposed
bcra
wrtl
sued
fec
seeking
declaratory
injunctive
relief
although
suit
resolved
election
rejected
fec
claim
mootness
finding
case
fit
comfortably
within
established
exception
mootness
disputes
capable
repetition
yet
evading
review
slip
exception
applies
challenged
action
duration
short
fully
litigated
prior
cessation
expiration
reasonable
expectation
complaining
party
subject
action
ibid
quoting
spencer
kemna
wrtl
despite
bcra
command
cas
expedited
greatest
possible
extent
wrtl
claims
reasonably
resolved
election
concluded
slip
quoting
stat
note
following
similarly
case
despite
bcra
mandate
expedite
davis
request
case
resolved
general
election
season
commenced
davis
case
resolved
election
concluded
demonstrating
claims
capable
evading
review
second
prong
exception
even
though
wrtl
raised
challenge
found
suit
capable
repetition
wrtl
credibly
claimed
planned
running
similar
future
ads
subject
bcra
prohibition
fact
sought
injunction
permit
ad
election
slip
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
fec
conceded
brief
davis
claim
capable
repetition
davis
planned
another
bid
house
seat
brief
appellee
davis
subsequently
made
public
statement
expressing
intent
see
reply
brief
citing
terreri
democrat
davis
confirms
run
congress
rochester
democrat
chronicle
mar
result
satisfied
davis
facial
challenge
iii
turn
merits
davis
claim
first
amendment
violated
contribution
limits
apply
comes
play
scheme
previously
noted
candidate
spends
personal
funds
creates
statute
apparently
regards
financial
imbalance
candidate
opponent
may
qualify
receive
larger
individual
contributions
otherwise
allowed
unlimited
coordinated
party
expenditures
davis
contends
unconstitutionally
burdens
exercise
first
amendment
right
make
unlimited
expenditures
personal
funds
making
expenditures
create
imbalance
effect
enabling
opponent
raise
money
use
money
finance
speech
counteracts
thus
diminishes
effectiveness
davis
speech
simply
raised
contribution
limits
candidates
davis
argument
plainly
fail
previously
sustained
facial
constitutionality
limits
discrete
aggregate
individual
contributions
coordinated
party
expenditures
buckley
valeo
per
curiam
federal
election
colorado
republican
federal
campaign
colorado
ii
time
recognized
limits
implicate
first
amendment
interests
stand
unless
closely
drawn
serve
sufficiently
important
interest
preventing
corruption
appearance
corruption
see
mcconnell
federal
election
colorado
ii
supra
nixon
shrink
missouri
government
pac
buckley
supra
contribution
limits
challenged
restrictive
extended
measure
deference
judgment
legislative
body
enacted
law
see
randall
sorrell
plurality
opinion
nixon
supra
buckley
supra
held
limits
low
stand
randall
supra
alito
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
however
constitutional
basis
attacking
contribution
limits
ground
high
congress
constitutional
obligation
limit
contributions
congress
concludes
allowing
contributions
certain
amount
create
undue
risk
corruption
appearance
corruption
candidate
wishes
restrict
opponent
fundraising
argue
constitution
demands
contributions
regulated
strictly
consequently
elevated
contribution
limits
applied
across
board
davis
basis
challenging
limits
section
however
raise
contribution
limits
across
board
rather
raises
limits
candidate
candidate
expenditure
personal
funds
causes
opfa
threshold
exceeded
never
upheld
constitutionality
law
imposes
different
contribution
limits
candidates
competing
agree
davis
scheme
impermissibly
burdens
first
amendment
right
spend
money
campaign
speech
buckley
soundly
rejected
cap
candidate
expenditure
personal
funds
finance
campaign
speech
held
candidate
first
amendment
right
engage
discussion
public
issues
vigorously
tirelessly
advocate
election
cap
personal
expenditures
imposes
substantial
clea
direc
restraint
right
found
cap
issue
justified
primary
governmental
interest
proffered
defense
prevention
actual
apparent
corruption
political
process
far
preventing
evils
use
personal
funds
observed
reduces
candidate
dependence
outside
contributions
thereby
counteracts
coercive
pressures
attendant
risks
abuse
contribution
limitations
directed
ibid
also
rejected
argument
expenditure
cap
justified
ground
served
ancillary
interest
equalizing
relative
financial
resources
candidates
competing
elective
office
putative
interest
noted
clearly
sufficient
justify
infringement
fundamental
first
amendment
rights
ibid
buckley
emphasis
fundamental
nature
right
spend
personal
funds
campaign
speech
instructive
bcra
impose
cap
candidate
expenditure
personal
funds
imposes
unprecedented
penalty
candidate
robustly
exercises
first
amendment
right
section
requires
candidate
choose
first
amendment
right
engage
unfettered
political
speech
subjection
discriminatory
fundraising
limitations
many
candidates
afford
make
large
personal
expenditures
support
campaigns
may
choose
despite
must
shoulder
special
potentially
significant
burden
make
choice
see
day
holahan
concluding
minnesota
law
increased
candidate
expenditure
limits
eligibility
public
funds
based
independent
expenditures
candidacy
burdened
speech
making
independent
expenditures
brief
appellee
conceding
impose
consequences
candidate
choice
beyond
certain
amounts
vigorous
exercise
right
use
personal
funds
finance
campaign
speech
produces
fundraising
advantages
opponents
competitive
context
electoral
politics
cf
pacific
gas
elec
public
util
plurality
opinion
finding
infringement
speech
rights
plaintiff
spoke
forced
help
disseminate
hostile
views
resulting
drag
first
amendment
rights
constitutional
simply
attaches
consequence
statutorily
imposed
choice
buckley
held
congress
may
engage
public
financing
election
campaigns
may
condition
acceptance
public
funds
agreement
candidate
abide
specified
expenditure
limitations
even
though
found
independent
limit
overall
campaign
expenditures
unconstitutional
see
choice
involved
buckley
quite
different
choice
imposed
buckley
candidate
forgoing
public
financing
retain
unfettered
right
make
unlimited
personal
expenditures
provide
way
candidate
exercise
right
without
abridgment
instead
candidate
wishes
exercise
right
two
choices
abide
limit
personal
expenditures
endure
burden
placed
right
activation
scheme
discriminatory
contribution
limits
choice
imposed
remotely
parallel
buckley
imposes
substantial
burden
exercise
first
amendment
right
use
personal
funds
campaign
speech
provision
stand
unless
justified
compelling
state
interest
federal
election
massachusetts
citizens
life
see
also
mcconnell
austin
michigan
chamber
commerce
scalia
dissenting
kennedy
dissenting
federal
election
national
conservative
political
action
first
nat
bank
boston
bellotti
colorado
republican
federal
campaign
comm
federal
election
principal
opinion
colorado
thomas
concurring
judgment
dissenting
part
justification
present
burden
imposed
expenditure
personal
funds
justified
governmental
interest
eliminating
corruption
perception
corruption
buckley
reasoned
reliance
personal
funds
reduces
threat
corruption
therefore
discouraging
use
personal
funds
disserves
anticorruption
interest
similarly
given
congress
judgment
liberalized
limits
candidates
unduly
imperil
anticorruption
interests
hard
imagine
denial
liberalized
limits
candidates
regarded
serving
anticorruption
goals
sufficiently
justify
resulting
constitutional
burden
government
maintains
asymmetrical
limits
justified
level
electoral
opportunities
candidates
different
personal
wealth
brief
appellee
congress
enacted
section
government
writes
reduce
natural
advantage
wealthy
individuals
possess
campaigns
federal
office
emphasis
added
prior
decisions
however
provide
support
proposition
legitimate
government
objective
see
nixon
thomas
dissenting
reventing
corruption
appearance
corruption
legitimate
compelling
government
interests
thus
far
identified
restricting
campaign
quoting
national
conservative
political
action
supra
randall
thomas
concurring
judgment
noting
interests
recognized
compelling
prevention
corruption
appearance
thereof
contrary
buckley
held
interest
equalizing
financial
resources
candidates
provide
justification
restricting
candidates
overall
campaign
expenditures
particularly
equalization
might
serve
handicap
candidate
lacked
substantial
name
recognition
exposure
views
start
campaign
similarly
held
interest
equalizing
relative
ability
individuals
groups
influence
outcome
elections
support
cap
expenditures
express
advocacy
election
defeat
candidates
concept
government
may
restrict
speech
elements
society
order
enhance
relative
voice
others
wholly
foreign
first
amendment
see
also
mcconnell
supra
noting
assessing
standing
legal
right
resources
influence
electoral
process
cf
austin
supra
kennedy
dissenting
rejecting
antithetical
first
amendment
notion
government
legitimate
interest
restricting
quantity
speech
equalize
relative
influence
speakers
elections
argument
candidate
speech
may
restricted
order
level
electoral
opportunities
ominous
implications
permit
congress
arrogate
voters
authority
evaluate
strengths
candidates
competing
office
see
bellotti
supra
people
democracy
entrusted
responsibility
judging
evaluating
relative
merits
conflicting
arguments
may
consider
making
judgment
source
credibility
advocate
different
candidates
different
strengths
wealthy
others
wealthy
supporters
willing
make
large
contributions
celebrities
benefit
family
name
leveling
electoral
opportunities
means
making
implementing
judgments
strengths
permitted
contribute
outcome
election
constitution
however
confers
upon
voters
congress
power
choose
members
house
representatives
art
dangerous
business
congress
use
election
laws
influence
voters
choices
see
bellotti
overnment
forbidden
assume
task
ultimate
judgment
lest
people
lose
ability
govern
finally
government
contends
justified
ameliorates
deleterious
effects
result
tight
limits
federal
election
law
places
individual
campaign
contributions
coordinated
party
expenditures
limits
argued
make
harder
candidates
wealthy
raise
funds
therefore
provide
substantial
advantage
wealthy
candidates
accordingly
seen
legislative
effort
interfere
natural
operation
electoral
process
legislative
effort
mitigate
untoward
consequences
congress
handiwork
restore
normal
relationship
candidate
financial
resources
level
popular
support
candidacy
brief
appellee
whatever
merits
argument
original
matter
fundamentally
war
analysis
expenditure
contributions
limits
adopted
buckley
applied
subsequent
cases
advantage
wealthy
candidates
enjoy
seeks
reduce
advantage
flows
directly
buckley
disparate
treatment
expenditures
contributions
approach
sound
government
urge
us
hold
hard
see
undoing
consequences
decision
viewed
compelling
interest
normally
applicable
limits
individual
contributions
coordinated
party
contributions
seriously
distorting
electoral
process
feeding
public
perception
wealthy
people
buy
seats
congress
brief
appellee
limits
needed
order
combat
corruption
obvious
remedy
raise
eliminate
limits
unprecedented
step
imposing
different
contribution
coordinated
party
expenditure
limits
candidates
vying
seat
antithetical
first
amendment
iv
remaining
issue
must
consider
constitutionality
disclosure
requirements
repeatedly
found
compelled
disclosure
seriously
infringe
privacy
association
belief
guaranteed
first
amendment
buckley
result
closely
scrutinized
disclosure
requirements
including
requirements
governing
independent
expenditures
made
individuals
political
speech
survive
scrutiny
significant
encroachments
justified
mere
showing
legitimate
governmental
interest
instead
must
correlation
relation
governmental
interest
information
required
disclosed
governmental
interest
must
survive
exacting
scrutiny
ibid
footnotes
omitted
strength
governmental
interest
must
reflect
seriousness
actual
burden
first
amendment
rights
disclosure
requirements
designed
implement
asymmetrical
contribution
limits
provided
discussed
violates
first
amendment
light
holding
burden
imposed
requirements
justified
follows
sum
hold
violate
first
amendment
judgment
district
reversed
case
remanded
proceedings
consistent
opinion
ordered
appendix
bcra
provides
availability
increased
limit
general
subject
paragraph
opposition
personal
funds
amount
respect
candidate
election
office
representative
delegate
resident
commissioner
congress
exceeds
limit
subsection
respect
candidate
shall
tripled
limit
subsection
shall
apply
respect
contribution
made
respect
candidate
contribution
made
increased
limit
allowed
subparagraph
period
candidate
may
accept
contribution
limits
subsection
respect
expenditure
state
national
committee
political
party
behalf
candidate
shall
apply
determination
opposition
personal
funds
amount
general
opposition
personal
funds
amount
amount
equal
excess
greatest
aggregate
amount
expenditures
personal
funds
defined
subsection
section
opposing
candidate
election
makes
ii
aggregate
amount
expenditures
personal
funds
made
candidate
respect
election
special
rule
candidate
campaign
funds
general
purposes
determining
aggregate
amount
expenditures
personal
funds
subparagraph
amount
shall
include
gross
receipts
advantage
candidate
authorized
committee
ii
gross
receipts
advantage
purposes
clause
term
gross
receipts
advantage
means
excess
aggregate
amount
percent
gross
receipts
candidate
authorized
committee
election
cycle
including
contributions
personal
funds
candidate
may
expended
connection
election
determined
june
december
year
preceding
year
general
election
held
ii
aggregate
amount
percent
gross
receipts
opposing
candidate
authorized
committee
election
cycle
including
contributions
personal
funds
candidate
may
expended
connection
election
determined
june
december
year
preceding
year
general
election
held
time
accept
contributions
increased
limit
general
subject
subparagraph
candidate
candidate
authorized
committee
shall
accept
contribution
party
committee
shall
make
expenditure
increased
limit
paragraph
candidate
received
notification
opposition
personal
funds
amount
subsection
section
ii
extent
contribution
added
aggregate
amount
contributions
previously
accepted
party
expenditures
previously
made
increased
limits
subsection
election
cycle
exceeds
percent
opposition
personal
funds
amount
effect
withdrawal
opposing
candidate
candidate
candidate
authorized
committee
shall
accept
contribution
party
shall
make
expenditure
increased
limit
date
opposing
candidate
ceases
candidate
extent
amount
increased
limit
attributable
opposing
candidate
disposal
excess
contributions
general
aggregate
amount
contributions
accepted
candidate
candidate
authorized
committee
increased
limit
paragraph
otherwise
expended
connection
election
respect
contributions
relate
shall
later
days
date
election
used
manner
described
subparagraph
return
contributors
candidate
candidate
authorized
committee
shall
return
excess
contribution
person
made
contribution
notification
expenditures
personal
funds
general
definition
expenditure
personal
funds
paragraph
term
expenditure
personal
funds
means
expenditure
made
candidate
using
personal
funds
ii
contribution
loan
made
candidate
using
personal
funds
loan
secured
using
funds
candidate
authorized
committee
declaration
intent
later
date
days
date
individual
becomes
candidate
office
representative
delegate
resident
commissioner
congress
candidate
shall
file
declaration
stating
total
amount
expenditures
personal
funds
candidate
intends
make
obligate
make
respect
election
exceed
initial
notification
later
hours
candidate
described
subparagraph
makes
obligates
make
aggregate
amount
expenditures
personal
funds
excess
connection
election
candidate
shall
file
notification
additional
notification
candidate
files
initial
notification
subparagraph
candidate
shall
file
additional
notification
time
expenditures
personal
funds
made
obligated
made
aggregate
amount
exceeds
notification
shall
filed
later
hours
expenditure
made
contents
notification
subparagraph
shall
include
name
candidate
office
sought
candidate
ii
date
amount
expenditure
iii
total
amount
expenditures
personal
funds
candidate
made
obligated
make
respect
election
date
expenditure
subject
notification
place
filing
declaration
notification
required
filed
candidate
subparagraph
shall
filed
commission
ii
candidate
election
national
party
candidate
notification
disposal
excess
contributions
next
regularly
scheduled
report
date
election
candidate
seeks
nomination
election
election
federal
office
candidate
candidate
authorized
committee
shall
submit
commission
report
indicating
source
amount
excess
contributions
determined
subsection
section
manner
candidate
candidate
authorized
committee
used
funds
enforcement
provisions
providing
enforcement
reporting
requirements
subsection
see
section
title
footnotes
omitted
jack
davis
appellant
federal
election
commission
appeal
district
district
columbia
june
justice
stevens
justice
souter
justice
ginsburg
justice
breyer
join
part
ii
concurring
part
dissenting
part
millionaire
amendment
bipartisan
campaign
reform
act
bcra
stat
ed
product
congressional
judgment
candidates
willing
able
spend
money
seeking
election
congress
enjoy
advantage
opponents
must
rely
contributions
finance
campaigns
reduce
advantage
combat
perception
congressional
seats
sale
highest
bidder
congress
relaxed
restrictions
otherwise
limit
amount
contributions
opponents
candidates
may
accept
supporters
thorough
opinion
district
held
millionaire
amendment
impose
burden
whatsoever
candidate
freedom
speak
violate
first
amendment
diminish
unequal
strength
candidate
violate
equal
protection
component
fifth
amendment
agree
completely
district
opinion
specifically
adherence
decision
mcconnell
federal
election
affirm
reasons
given
district
believe
appropriate
add
additional
comments
premise
underlies
constitutional
prohibition
expenditure
limitations
reasons
concluding
millionaire
amendment
represents
modest
sensible
plainly
constitutional
attempt
congress
minimize
advantages
enjoyed
wealthy
candidates
must
rely
support
others
fund
pursuit
public
office
according
decision
buckley
valeo
per
curiam
vice
condemns
expenditure
limitations
impose
direct
quantity
restrictions
political
limitation
amount
money
candidate
permitted
spend
buckley
concluded
reduces
quantity
expression
restricting
number
issues
discussed
depth
exploration
size
audience
reached
accordingly
determined
regulation
quantity
money
spent
campaigns
office
viewed
direct
regulation
speech
justice
white
firmly
disagreed
buckley
holding
expenditure
limitations
explaining
regulations
analyzed
direct
restrictions
speech
rather
akin
time
place
manner
regulations
upheld
long
purposes
serve
legitimate
sufficiently
substantial
opinion
concurring
part
dissenting
part
although
participate
decision
buckley
since
persuaded
justice
white
maintained
steadfast
opposition
buckley
view
expenditure
limits
see
federal
election
national
conservative
political
action
dissenting
opinion
correct
indeed
buckley
represented
break
years
established
practice
well
probable
departure
views
framers
relevant
provisions
constitution
see
randall
sorrell
stevens
dissenting
view
number
purposes
legitimate
substantial
may
justify
imposition
reasonable
limitations
expenditures
permitted
course
single
campaign
one
limitations
free
candidates
staffs
interminable
burden
fundraising
colorado
republican
federal
campaign
comm
federal
election
stevens
dissenting
moreover
imposition
reasonable
limitations
likely
salutary
effect
improving
quality
exposition
ideas
orderly
debate
always
enlightening
shouting
match
awards
points
basis
decibels
rather
reasons
quantity
limitations
commonplace
number
contexts
speech
occurs
litigants
pressing
issues
utmost
importance
nation
allowed
fixed
time
oral
debate
maximum
number
pages
written
argument
listeners
readers
judges
need
time
reflect
merits
issue
repetitious
arguments
disfavored
usually
especially
unpersuasive
indeed
experts
art
advocacy
agree
lawyers
go
long
help
case
seems
congress
entitled
make
judgment
voters
deserve
courtesy
opportunity
reflect
judges
flooding
airwaves
slogans
may
well
obscure
issues
enlighten
listeners
least
context
elections
notion
rules
limiting
quantity
speech
offensive
first
amendment
rules
limiting
content
speech
plainly
come
believe
congress
attempt
reduce
millionaire
candidate
advantage
imposing
reasonable
limits
candidates
expenditures
follows
fortiori
eminently
reasonable
scheme
us
today
survives
constitutional
scrutiny
ii
even
accepting
buckley
holding
expenditure
limits
uniquely
incompatible
first
amendment
remains
firm
conviction
millionaire
amendment
represents
attempt
congress
regulate
within
bounds
constitution
one
particularly
pernicious
feature
many
contemporary
political
gainsaid
twin
rationales
heart
millionaire
amendment
reducing
importance
wealth
criterion
public
office
countering
perception
seats
congress
available
purchase
wealthiest
bidder
important
government
interests
also
evident
congress
enacting
provision
crafted
solution
carefully
tailored
concerns
davis
insists
however
government
interests
insufficiently
weighty
justify
believes
intrusions
upon
rights
first
amendment
equal
protection
component
fifth
amendment
regardless
strength
justifications
offered
congress
solution
sufficiently
tailored
addressing
twin
concerns
identified
arguments
unpersuasive
counts
thrust
davis
first
amendment
challenge
relaxing
contribution
limits
applicable
opponent
candidate
millionaire
amendment
punishes
candidate
chooses
extrapolating
nature
political
race
davis
insists
benefit
conferred
upon
opponent
thereby
works
detriment
candidate
accordingly
argues
scheme
burdens
candidate
first
amendment
right
speak
freely
participate
fully
political
process
davis
show
millionaire
amendment
causes
candidate
first
amendment
injury
whatsoever
millionaire
amendment
quiets
speech
contrary
assist
opponent
candidate
attempts
make
voice
heard
amplification
way
mutes
voice
millionaire
remains
able
speak
loud
long
likes
support
campaign
enhancing
speech
millionaire
opponent
far
contravening
first
amendment
actually
advances
core
principles
one
candidate
make
heard
voter
ability
make
informed
choice
candidate
ability
engage
meaningfully
political
process
way
undermined
even
credit
davis
view
benefit
conferred
candidate
opponent
burdens
first
amendment
rights
purposes
amendment
surely
justify
effects
simply
wrong
suggests
governmental
interest
eliminating
corruption
perception
corruption
ante
sole
governmental
interest
sufficient
support
campaign
finance
regulations
see
ante
true
course
upholding
federal
election
campaign
act
feca
limits
size
contributions
political
campaigns
buckley
held
preventing
actual
corruption
appearance
corruption
government
interests
sufficient
weight
justified
infringement
upon
first
amendment
freedoms
resulted
feca
contribution
limits
explained
extent
large
contributions
given
secure
political
quid
pro
quo
current
potential
office
holders
integrity
system
representative
democracy
undermined
almost
equal
concern
impact
appearance
corruption
stemming
public
awareness
opportunities
abuse
inherent
regime
large
individual
financial
contributions
also
true
found
interest
insufficient
justify
feca
expenditure
limitations
follow
buckley
concluded
interest
combating
corruption
appearance
corruption
justify
congressional
regulation
campaign
financing
indeed
long
recognized
strength
independent
governmental
interest
reducing
influence
wealth
outcomes
elections
appearance
wealth
alone
dictates
results
case
case
held
statutes
designed
protect
undue
influence
aggregations
wealth
political
process
statutes
responsive
identified
evil
contravene
first
amendment
see
austin
michigan
chamber
commerce
upholding
statute
designed
combat
corrosive
distorting
effects
immense
aggregations
wealth
accumulated
help
corporate
form
little
correlation
public
support
corporation
political
ideas
federal
election
massachusetts
citizens
life
th
concern
corrosive
influence
concentrated
corporate
wealth
reflects
conviction
important
protect
integrity
marketplace
political
ideas
direct
corporate
spending
political
activity
raises
prospect
resources
amassed
economic
marketplace
may
used
provide
unfair
advantage
political
marketplace
cf
red
lion
broadcasting
fcc
upholding
constitutionality
several
components
fcc
fair
coverage
requirements
explaining
purpose
first
amendment
preserve
uninhibited
marketplace
ideas
truth
ultimately
prevail
rather
countenance
monopolization
market
although
focus
cases
aggregations
corporate
rather
individual
wealth
reason
logic
specifically
concerns
corrosive
distorting
effects
wealth
political
process
equally
applicable
context
individual
wealth
explained
mcconnell
congress
historical
concern
potentialities
wealth
consequences
democratic
process
long
reached
beyond
corporate
money
quoting
automobile
workers
minimizing
effect
concentrated
wealth
political
process
concomitant
interest
addressing
dangers
attend
perception
political
power
purchased
therefore
sufficiently
weighty
objectives
justify
significant
congressional
action
congress
motivated
proper
weighty
goals
crafting
millionaire
amendment
details
scheme
devised
genuinely
responsive
problems
identified
statute
opposition
personal
funds
amount
formula
permits
candidate
spend
much
money
wishes
taking
account
fundraising
relevant
campaigns
thereby
ensures
candidate
happens
enjoy
significant
fundraising
advantage
opponent
reap
windfall
result
enhanced
contribution
limits
rather
opponent
may
avail
enhanced
contribution
limits
parity
achieved
point
becomes
ineligible
contributions
normal
maximum
see
seems
uncontroversial
good
reason
allow
disparities
wealth
translated
disparities
political
power
democracy
distinguishes
market
processes
purchase
sale
one
hand
political
processes
voting
sunstein
political
equality
unintended
consequences
colum
rev
light
clear
truth
congress
carefully
crafted
attempt
reduce
distinct
advantages
enjoyed
wealthy
candidates
congressional
office
offend
first
amendment
davis
equal
protection
argument
finds
unnecessary
address
ante
fares
better
claims
permitting
opponent
avail
increased
contribution
limits
statute
creates
unwarranted
disparity
opponent
explained
mcconnell
congress
fully
entitled
consider
differences
crafting
system
campaign
finance
regulation
buckley
acknowledged
course
upholding
feca
public
financing
scheme
constitution
require
congress
treat
declared
candidates
blinks
reality
contend
millionaire
candidate
situated
identically
nonmillionaire
opponent
congress
obligation
indulge
fiction
accordingly
davis
failed
establish
deprived
equal
protection
guarantees
fifth
amendment
iii
sum
share
judge
wright
view
nothing
constitution
prevents
us
political
community
making
certain
modest
important
changes
kind
process
want
selecting
political
leaders
wright
politics
constitution
money
speech
yale
judgment
millionaire
amendment
represents
change
therefore
respectfully
dissent
jack
davis
appellant
federal
election
commission
appeal
district
district
columbia
june
justice
ginsburg
justice
breyer
joins
concurring
part
dissenting
part
agreeing
appellant
jack
davis
standing
case
moot
join
part
ii
opinion
merits
however
part
ways
district
careful
persuasive
opinion
see
correctly
concluded
provisions
challenged
case
entirely
consistent
buckley
valeo
per
curiam
relevant
decisions
therefore
join
part
ii
justice
stevens
opinion
resist
joining
portions
justice
stevens
opinion
however
extent
address
buckley
distinction
expenditure
contribution
limits
correspondingly
buckley
holding
expenditure
limits
impose
direct
quantity
restrictions
political
communication
appellee
federal
election
commission
asked
us
overrule
buckley
consequently
issue
briefed
convinced
challenged
statute
encounters
constitutional
shoal
precedents
leave
reconsideration
buckley
later
day
case
footnotes
undesignated
references
opinion
edition
limits
adjusted
inflation
every
two
years
bcra
set
appendix
opinion
although
refer
actually
federal
election
campaign
act
added
act
bcra
follow
convention
parties
making
reference
bcra
similarly
regulates
senate
bids
stat
opfa
calculated
follows
candidate
expenditures
personal
funds
added
funds
raised
election
issue
measured
designated
dates
year
preceding
election
resulting
figures
compared
difference
greater
asymmetrical
limits
take
effect
see
light
conclusion
need
decide
whether
threat
fec
enforcement
action
alleged
violations
sufficient
keep
controversy
alive
even
characterized
limit
contributions
rather
expenditures
doubtful
whether
survive
contribution
limit
involving
significant
interference
associational
must
closely
drawn
serve
sufficiently
important
interest
mcconnell
federal
election
reasons
explained
infra
chief
interest
proffered
support
asymmetrical
contribution
scheme
leveling
electoral
opportunities
justify
infringement
first
amendment
interests
justice
stevens
revisit
reject
buckley
treatment
expenditure
limits
post
opinion
concurring
part
dissenting
part
government
urged
us
take
step
event
justice
stevens
proposal
unsound
suggests
restricting
quantity
campaign
speech
improve
quality
speech
dangerous
government
regulate
core
political
speech
asserted
purpose
improving
speech
event
reason
suppose
restricting
quantity
campaign
speech
desired
effect
conclude
violate
first
amendment
need
address
davis
claim
also
violate
equal
protection
component
fifth
amendment
due
process
clause
footnotes
buckley
invalidated
two
different
types
limits
campaign
expenditures
limits
amount
personal
family
resources
candidate
spend
campaign
overall
limits
campaign
expenditures
judgment
mistaken
striking
provisions
treat
together
brust
voice
write
tips
making
case
supremely
reliable
source
may
interview
justice
scalia
bryan
garner
course
correct
dangerous
government
regulate
core
political
speech
asserted
purpose
improving
speech
ante
campaign
expenditures
core
political
speech
merely
may
enable
speech
well
repetition
ad
nauseam
judgment
simply
case
first
amendment
provides
measure
protection
use
money
enable
speech
speech
nixon
shrink
missouri
government
pac
stevens
concurring
note
outset
discussion
however
agree
conclusion
davis
standing
challenge
case
moot
therefore
join
part
ii
opinion
republic
people
sovereign
ability
citizenry
make
informed
choices
among
candidates
office
essential
identities
elected
inevitably
shape
course
follow
nation
buckley
valeo
per
curiam
retains
choice
structure
campaign
funding
pleases
may
choose
fund
campaign
subject
limitations
whatsoever
still
accept
limited
donations
supporters
alternatively
may
forgo
rely
contributions
alone
level
opponent
neither
event
engagement
political
process
sense
impeded