| McConnell v. Federal Election Commission | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued September 8, 2003 Decided December 10, 2003 | |
| Full case name | Addison Mitchell McConnell v. Federal Election Commission |
| Citations | 540 U.S. 93 (more) 124 S. Ct. 619; 157 L. Ed. 2d 491; 2003 U.S. LEXIS 9195; 72 U.S.L.W. 4015; 17 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 13 |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Mixed ruling by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia |
| Holding | |
| Not all political speech is protected by the First Amendment from government infringement. United States District Court for the District of Columbia affirmed in part, reversed in part. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Stevens, O'Connor (Titles I and II), joined by Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer |
| Majority | Rehnquist (Titles III and IV), joined by O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter; Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer (in part); Thomas (in part) |
| Majority | Breyer (Title V), joined by Stevens, O'Connor, Souter, Ginsburg |
| Concur/dissent | Scalia |
| Concur/dissent | Thomas, joined by Scalia (Parts I, II–A, and II–B) |
| Concur/dissent | Kennedy, joined by Rehnquist; Scalia (in part); Thomas (in part) |
| Dissent | Rehnquist, joined by Scalia, Kennedy |
| Dissent | Stevens, joined by Ginsburg, Breyer |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. I, Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act | |
Overruled by | |
| Citizens United v. FEC (2010) (in part) | |
McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, 540 U.S. 93 (2003), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of most of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), often referred to as the McCain–Feingold Act.[1]
The case takes its name from Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky, and the Federal Election Commission, the federal agency that oversees U.S. campaign finance laws.
It was partially overruled by Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010).[2]
© MMXXIII Rich X Search. We shall prevail. All rights reserved. Rich X Search