election-law_gl-digest    Sunday, February 10 2002    Volume 01 : Number 136




----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2002 07:48:07 -0500
From: Nathaniel Persily <npersily@law.upenn.edu>
Subject: expenditure limits

Is it correct to say that Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce is the
only post-Buckley Supreme Court decision upholding a limit (indeed, in
this case, a ban) on independent expenditures?

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2002 09:34:53 -0500
From: Nathaniel Persily <npersily@law.upenn.edu>
Subject: one other small question

Did Buckley (or any court since then) explicitly uphold FECA's $20,000
limit on contributions to political parties?  I cannot seem to find it
in the Buckley opinion.

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2002 13:11:24 -0800
From: Rick Hasen <rick.hasen@lls.edu>
Subject: Re: one other small question

Austin is the only case on the Supreme Court level. There
has been some discussion of the issue in the lower courts.
In the recent Lincoln Club case from the Ninth Circuit
(discussed most recently in a post by Eugene Volokh to the
list), the appellate court held it constitutional to limit
contributions to a PAC that made only independent
expenditures favoring candidates.
On Nate's other question, as I recall, Colorado Republican I
mentions the fact that Buckley didn't expressly address
limits on contributions to political parties.

P.S. for anyone who wants more on the Compton case, see
http://latimes.com/news/local/la-000010337feb10.story
- --
Rick Hasen
Professor of Law and William M. Rains Fellow
Loyola Law School
919 South Albany Street
Los Angeles, CA  90015-1211
(213)736-1466 - voice
(213)380-3769 - fax
rick.hasen@lls.edu
http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.html

------------------------------

End of election-law_gl-digest V1 #136
*************************************