Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Cause of Action's McCutcheon v. FEC Amicus Brief

Cause of Action's McCutcheon v. FEC Amicus Brief

Ratings: (0)|Views: 129|Likes:
Published by Cause of Action
In McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, the majority cited Cause of Action's amicus brief (page 36):

With modern technology, disclosure now offers a particularly effective means of arming the voting public with information. In 1976, the Court observed that Congress could regard disclosure as "only a partial measure." Buckley, 424 U.S., at 28. That perception was understandable in a world in which information about campaign contributions was filed at FEC offices and was therefore virtually inaccessible to the average member of the public. See Brief for Cause of Action Institute as Amicus Curiae 15-16.
In McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, the majority cited Cause of Action's amicus brief (page 36):

With modern technology, disclosure now offers a particularly effective means of arming the voting public with information. In 1976, the Court observed that Congress could regard disclosure as "only a partial measure." Buckley, 424 U.S., at 28. That perception was understandable in a world in which information about campaign contributions was filed at FEC offices and was therefore virtually inaccessible to the average member of the public. See Brief for Cause of Action Institute as Amicus Curiae 15-16.

More info:

Published by: Cause of Action on Apr 02, 2014
Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reserved

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

08/05/2014

pdf

text

original

 
 
No. 12-536
 
In the
Supreme Court of the United States
S
HAUN
M
C
C
UTCHEON
 
ET AL
 
 A 
PPELLANTS 
 
V
.
 
F
EDERAL
E
LECTION
C
OMMISSION
 
 A 
PPELLEE 
 
___________
 
O
N
 A 
PPEAL
F
ROM THE
U
NITED
S
TATES
D
ISTRICT
C
OURT FOR THE
D
ISTRICT OF
C
OLUMBIA 
 
Brief of Cause of Action Institute As
Amicus Curiae
 Supporting Appellants
 
B
 ARNABY
W.
 
Z
 ALL
 
Counsel of Record
Weinberg, Jacobs & Tolani, LLP 7018 Tilden Lane Daniel Z. Epstein Rockville, MD 20852 Hallee Morgan (301) 231-6943 Justin Meyers bzall@bzall.com Marie Connelly Robyn Burrows Karen Groen C
 AUSE OF
 A 
CTION
I
NSTITUTE
 1919 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006
 
- i -
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
 Appellants present five questions: 1. Whether the biennial limit on contributions to non-candidate committees, 2 U.S.C. § 441a(a)(3)(B), is unconstitutional for lacking a constitutionally cognizable interest as applied to contributions to national-party committees. 2. Whether the biennial limits on contributions to non-candidate committees, 2 U.S.C. § 441a(a) (3)(B), are unconstitutional facially for lacking a constitutionally cognizable interest. 3. Whether the biennial limits on contributions to non-candidate committees are unconstitutionally too low, as applied and facially. 4. Whether the biennial limit on contributions to candidate committees, 2 U.S.C. § 441a(a)(3)(A), is unconstitutional for lacking a constitutionally cognizable interest. 5. Whether the biennial limit on contributions to candidate committees, 2 U.S.C. § 441a(a)(3)(A), is unconstitutionally too low.
 
- ii -
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Questions Presented ................................................... i Table of Contents ...................................................... ii Table of Authorities ................................................. iv Statement of Interest .................................................1 Statement of Context ..................................................3 Summary of Argument ..............................................7  Argument .....................................................................9 I. The Aggregate Limits Are Not Narrowly Tailored to
the Government’s Interest in
 Avoiding Circumvention of the Individual Contribution Limits........................................ 11  A.
 
The Aggregate Limits Are No Longer
Needed Because “Fully Disclosed” Means
Something Different Now Than in 1974 . 11 1. In 1974, Information About Candidates and Donors Was Not Easily Accessible .. 12 2. Today, Information About Candidates and Donors Is Readily Available ............. 17

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->