COMMON CAUSE v. SCHMITT
Supreme Court Cases
455 U.S. 129 (1982)
Related Cases
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION v. CRUZ
Decided:
1. Whether appellees have standing to challenge the statutory loan-repayment limit. and 2. Whether the loan-repayment limit violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.
THOMPSON v. HEBDON
Decided:
WILLIAMS-YULEE v. THE FLORIDA BAR
Decided:
MCCUTCHEON v. FEC
Decided:
DAVIS v. FEC
Decided:
Whether BCRAs so-called "Millionaires Amendment," which relaxes campaign finance limits for opponents of congressional candidates spending more than $350,000 of their own money, violates either the First or Fifth Amendments.
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION v. WISCONSIN RIGHT TO LIFE, INC.
Decided:
Whether the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Acts ban on election season campaign ads by corporations violates the First Amendment.
NEIL RANDALL, et al. v. WILLIAM H. SORRELL et al.
Decided:
Whether Vermont's mandatory limits on candidate expenditures violate the 1st and 14th Amendments and the Supreme Court's decision in Buckley v. Valeo? Whether Vermont's treatment of independent expenditures by political parties and committees presumptively coordinated if they benefit fewer than six candidates, and thereby subject to strict contribution and expenditure limits, is consistent with the 1st and 14th Amendments and the Supreme Court's decision in Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. FEC? Whether Vermont's contribution limits, which are the lowest in the country, which allow only a single maximum contribution over a two-year election cycle, and which prohibit state political parties from contributing more than $400 to their gubernatorial candidate, fall below an acceptable constitutional threshold and should be struck down?
WISCONSIN RIGHT TO LIFE, INC. v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
Decided:
Whether the three-judge district court correctly dismissed appellant's as-applied constitutional challenge to the federal prohibition on the use of corporate treasury funds to finance "electioneering communications."
MITCH MCCONNELL, UNITED STATES SENATOR, et al. v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, et al.
Decided:
Whether the district court erred by upholding portions of the "soft money" provision (section 101) of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), Pub. L. No. 107-155, 166 Stat. 81, because it constitutes an invalid exercise of Congress' power to regulate elections under Article I, Section 4, of the Constitution; violates the First Amendment or the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment; or is unconstitutionally vague. Whether the district court erred by upholding portions of the "electioneering communications" provisions (sections 201, 203, 204, and 311), of BCRA, because they violate the First Amendment or the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment, or are unconstitutionally vague. Whether the district court erred by holding nonjusticiable challenges to, and upholding, portions of the "advance notice" provisions, the "coordination" provisions, and the "attack ad" provision of BCRA (section 305), because they violates the First Amendment.
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION v. CHRISTINE BEAUMONT et al.
Decided:
Whether certain advocacy groups can contribute to candidates campaigns. Currently, only individuals, political action committees, political parties and other campaign committees can give to candidates. More specifically, the issue is whether North Carolina Right to Life and other nonprofit advocacy corporations groups that raise money not through business ventures but through donations from supporters can make campaign contributions. Such groups have neither business interests nor shareholders.
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION v. COLORADO REPUBLICAN FEDERAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE
Decided:
Whether the Party Expenditure Provision of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 violates a political party's First Amendment rights by limiting the amount of money a party may spend in coordination with its congressional candidates.
JEREMIAH W. (JAY) NIXON, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MISSOURI, et al. v. SHRINK MISSOURI GOVERNMENT PAC et al.
Decided:
Whether the Buckley v. Valeodecision authorizes state limits on campaign-contributions to state political candidates. Whether the limits approved in Buckleydefine the scope of permissible state limitations.
COLORADO REPUBLICAN FEDERAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE AND DOUGLAS JONES, TREASURER v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
Decided:
Whether campaign spending limits constitutionally can be applied against a state committee of a political party whose spending was not coordinated with a candidate.
AUSTIN, MICHIGAN SECRETARY OF STATE, et al. v. MICHIGAN STATE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
Decided:
Did the Michigan Campaign Finance Act violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments?
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION et al. v. NATIONAL RIGHT TO WORK COMMITTEE et al.
Decided:
Whether provisions of the 1971 Federal Election Campaign Act restricting union and corporation's funds for political purposes to members of the corporation violate the First Amendment's guarantees of associational rights.
CITIZENS AGAINST RENT CONTROL/COALITION FOR FAIR HOUSING et al. v. CITY OF BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA, et al.
Decided:
Whether a $250 limit on contributions to committees in support of or opposition to ballot initiatives in California violated First Amendment guarantees of association and free speech.
CALIFORNIA MEDICAL ASSOCIATION et al. v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION et al.
Decided:
Whether a provision of the 1971 Federal Elections Campaign Act prohibiting individual contributions of over $5000 to multicandidate political committees violated First Amendment guarantees of speech and associational freedoms.
FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF BOSTON et al. v. BELLOTTI, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MASSACHUSETTS
Decided:
Whether a state criminal statute that forbids certain expenditures by banks and business corporations for the purpose of influencing the vote on referendum proposals violates the First Amendment.
BUCKLEY et al. v. VALEO, SECRETARY OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE, et al.
Decided:
Do the Federal Election Campaign Act’s limits on electoral expenditures violate the 1st Amendment?