Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC
528 U.S. 377 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
State limits on political campaign contributions are constitutional so long as they are closely drawn to match a sufficiently important state interest in preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption. States are not required to peg their contribution limits to the federal limits approved in Buckley v. Valeo, nor must they produce extensive evidence of actual corruption to justify the limits.
Facts:
- In 1994, Missouri enacted a statute that imposed limits on cash contributions to candidates for state political office.
- The limits ranged from $275 for candidates for state representative to $1,075 for candidates for statewide office, like state auditor.
- Zev David Fredman was a candidate for the 1998 Republican nomination for state auditor.
- Shrink Missouri Government PAC, a political action committee, wished to contribute more to Fredman's campaign than the $1,075 limit allowed.
- Shrink Missouri had already donated a total of $1,075 to Fredman's committee across 1997 and 1998.
- Fredman asserted that he could not campaign effectively without contributions larger than the state law permitted.
Procedural Posture:
- Shrink Missouri Government PAC and Zev David Fredman sued Missouri officials in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, seeking to enjoin the state's contribution limit law.
- The District Court (a trial court) granted summary judgment for Missouri, upholding the contribution limits.
- Shrink Missouri and Fredman, as appellants, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (an intermediate appellate court).
- The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision, holding the Missouri law unconstitutional for lack of sufficient evidence of corruption.
- The State of Missouri, through its officials (petitioners), was granted a writ of certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court (the highest court).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a state law imposing limits on cash contributions to political candidates, ranging from $275 to $1,075 for various offices, violate the First Amendment's guarantees of free speech and association?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Souter
No, the state law does not violate the First Amendment. The precedent set in Buckley v. Valeo, which upheld federal contribution limits, is the controlling authority for comparable state regulations. The government's interest in preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption is a 'sufficiently important interest' to justify limits on contributions. A state does not need to produce an extensive evidentiary record of actual corruption; the perception of improper influence is a sufficient justification. The Court rejected the argument that contribution limits must be indexed to inflation from the time Buckley was decided. The constitutional test is whether the limits are so low as to prevent candidates from 'amassing the resources necessary for effective advocacy,' and Missouri's limits did not have such a prohibitive effect.
Concurring - Justice Stevens
No, the state law does not violate the First Amendment. The core issue is a regulation of property, not speech. Money is property, not speech itself, and while the use of money to fund campaigns merits constitutional protection, it is not entitled to the same high level of protection as pure speech. The right to use one's money is more akin to a property or liberty interest under the due process doctrine than a core First Amendment right.
Concurring - Justice Breyer
No, the state law does not violate the First Amendment. A rigid 'strict scrutiny' test is inappropriate here because there are competing constitutional interests on both sides: a contributor's free expression versus the state's interest in protecting the integrity of the democratic process. The proper approach is to balance these interests, deferring to the legislature's judgment about the threat of corruption unless the limits are so low that they insulate incumbents from effective electoral challenges. Given the evidence that candidates could still raise adequate funds, Missouri's law does not work a disproportionate harm.
Dissenting - Justice Kennedy
Yes, the state law violates the First Amendment. The Court's decision perpetuates the flawed logic of Buckley v. Valeo, which has created a 'misshapen system' that encourages 'covert speech' through unlimited soft money and issue advocacy while restricting direct, transparent contributions. This system harms the democratic process more than the potential corruption it purports to prevent. The Court should overrule Buckley and allow legislatures to devise a new system, but until then, this law cannot pass serious First Amendment scrutiny.
Dissenting - Justice Thomas
Yes, the state law violates the First Amendment. Buckley v. Valeo was wrongly decided and should be overruled. Contribution limits are a direct and substantial restriction on core political speech and should be subject to strict scrutiny, which the Missouri law cannot survive. The distinction between contributions and expenditures is fallacious, as contributions are a primary way for individuals to amplify a candidate's message. The only compelling interest is preventing actual quid pro quo corruption, which is already addressed by bribery laws and does not justify such a broad suppression of speech.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies Buckley v. Valeo as the governing precedent for state campaign contribution limits, giving states significant deference in regulating campaign finance. It clarifies that states do not need to present overwhelming, localized evidence of corruption to justify such limits, relying instead on the inherent and plausible perception of corruption that large donations create. The ruling also rejects a rigid, inflation-adjusted dollar floor for contribution limits, focusing instead on a more flexible standard of whether the limits functionally prevent effective campaigning. This makes it more difficult to challenge contribution limits on the grounds that they are too low in absolute dollar terms.
Unlock the full brief for Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC