审查独立支出限额:一个反对超严格审查的案例

IF 1.3 Q1 LAW
Allie Boldt
{"title":"审查独立支出限额:一个反对超严格审查的案例","authors":"Allie Boldt","doi":"10.1089/ELJ.2016.0399","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Although Buckley v. Valeo purported to subject both contribution and independent expenditure limits to “exacting” scrutiny, contribution limits have since been subjected to a lower level of scrutiny than independent expenditure limits. Contribution limits survive if closely drawn to match a “sufficiently important” government interest. Meanwhile, limits on independent expenditures must be narrowly tailored to a “compelling” government interest. The Court has insisted that the only government interest important enough to justify limits on big money is the prevention of corruption or its appearance, and that, while contribution limits are justified by this interest, independent expenditure limits are not. By holding there is no good reason to limit what individuals can spend on elections, the Court has subjected independent expenditure limits to something more like super-strict scrutiny, condemning them to a strong presumption of unconstitutionality regardless of how high the limit. This article ma...","PeriodicalId":45644,"journal":{"name":"Election Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2017-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1089/ELJ.2016.0399","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Scrutinizing Independent Expenditure Limits: A Case Against Super-Strict Scrutiny\",\"authors\":\"Allie Boldt\",\"doi\":\"10.1089/ELJ.2016.0399\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Although Buckley v. Valeo purported to subject both contribution and independent expenditure limits to “exacting” scrutiny, contribution limits have since been subjected to a lower level of scrutiny than independent expenditure limits. Contribution limits survive if closely drawn to match a “sufficiently important” government interest. Meanwhile, limits on independent expenditures must be narrowly tailored to a “compelling” government interest. The Court has insisted that the only government interest important enough to justify limits on big money is the prevention of corruption or its appearance, and that, while contribution limits are justified by this interest, independent expenditure limits are not. By holding there is no good reason to limit what individuals can spend on elections, the Court has subjected independent expenditure limits to something more like super-strict scrutiny, condemning them to a strong presumption of unconstitutionality regardless of how high the limit. This article ma...\",\"PeriodicalId\":45644,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Election Law Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1089/ELJ.2016.0399\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Election Law Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1089/ELJ.2016.0399\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Election Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/ELJ.2016.0399","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

尽管Buckley诉法雷奥案声称对出资和独立支出限额进行“严格”审查,但自那以后,出资限额受到的审查水平低于独立支出限额。如果设定的限制与“足够重要”的政府利益相匹配,那么出资上限仍将存在。与此同时,对独立支出的限制必须严格符合“令人信服的”政府利益。最高法院坚持认为,唯一重要到足以证明限制巨额资金是合理的政府利益是防止腐败或腐败的出现,而且,尽管捐款限制是由这种利益来证明的,但独立支出限制却不是。最高法院认为,没有充分理由限制个人在选举上的支出,这使独立支出限制更像是受到了一种超严格的审查,无论限制有多高,都将其置于强烈的违宪推定之下。这篇文章…
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Scrutinizing Independent Expenditure Limits: A Case Against Super-Strict Scrutiny
Abstract Although Buckley v. Valeo purported to subject both contribution and independent expenditure limits to “exacting” scrutiny, contribution limits have since been subjected to a lower level of scrutiny than independent expenditure limits. Contribution limits survive if closely drawn to match a “sufficiently important” government interest. Meanwhile, limits on independent expenditures must be narrowly tailored to a “compelling” government interest. The Court has insisted that the only government interest important enough to justify limits on big money is the prevention of corruption or its appearance, and that, while contribution limits are justified by this interest, independent expenditure limits are not. By holding there is no good reason to limit what individuals can spend on elections, the Court has subjected independent expenditure limits to something more like super-strict scrutiny, condemning them to a strong presumption of unconstitutionality regardless of how high the limit. This article ma...
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
16.70%
发文量
13
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信