[EL] question on history of federal election campaign act litigation

[Josh Douglas]

The Supreme Court has heard two cases that came from this procedure:
Buckley, and Cal. Med. Ass’n v. FEC, 453 U.S. 182 (1981).

I discuss this procedure is some detail in my article, The Procedure of
Election Law in Federal Courts
<https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1679518>.

Joshua A. Douglas
Thomas P. Lewis Professor of Law
University of Kentucky College of Law
620 S. Limestone
Lexington, KY 40506
859-257-4935
joshuadouglas at uky.edu
Twitter: *@JoshuaADouglas <https://twitter.com/JoshuaADouglas>*

*   Find me at www.JoshuaADouglas.com <http://www.JoshuaADouglas.com>*

On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 2:33 PM, Richard Winger <richardwinger at yahoo.com>
wrote:

> The 1971 federal election campaign act, as amended in 1974, says
> constitutional challenges to the act, if they are substantial, must go to
> an en banc panel of the DC circuit.  That procedural was used in Buckley v
> Valeo.  Has it been used that way since then?
>
> A US District Court in Washington DC just certified the same procedural
> for the Libertarian National Committee v FEC challenge to the limits to
> parties, as applied to contributions from bequests.  I hope someone knows
> what other cases, since Buckley v Valeo, have been to an en banc panel.  I
> seem to remember Free Speech Now v FEC had that.  Thank you.
>
> Richard Winger 415-922-9779 PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20180724/dcc19e88/attachment.html>