Nixon v. Shrink Missouri government PAC: The beginning of the end of the Buckley era?

Minnesota Law Review

Volumn 85, Issue 6, 2001, Pages 1729-

  Briffault, Richard ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0041805273     PISSN: 00265535     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (5)

1. 528 U.S. 377, 386-97 (2000).
2. 424 U.S. 1, 143 (1976) (per curiam).
3. Shrink Missouri, 528 U.S. at 386-97.
4. Shrink Mo. Gov't PAC v. Adams, 161 F.3d 519, 522-23 (8th Cir. 1998). Only one member of the Eighth Circuit panel expressly concluded that the Missouri limits were too low. Id. at 522-23. Two members of the court, however, held that contribution limits could be sustained only if narrowly drawn to serve a compelling a state interest and found that Missouri had failed to demonstrate that there was any compelling state interest served by the limits. Id. at 521-22.
5. See Russell v. Burris, 146 F.3d 563, 570-71 (8th Cir. 1998); Carver v. Nixon, 72 F.3d 633, 645 (8th Cir. 1995); Day v. Holahan, 34 F.3d 1356 (8th Cir. 1994); Nat'l Black Police Ass'n v. B.C. Bd. of Elections, 924 F. Supp. 270, 281-82 (D.D.C. 1996). But cf. Ky. Right to Life, Inc. v. Terry, 108 F.3d 637, 648 (6th Cir. 1997) (upholding a contribution limit of $1000 per election year).