The Supreme Court ruled Monday that Vermont's limits on contributions and spending in political campaigns are too restrictive and hinder the ability of candidates to raise money and speak to voters. In a fractured set of opinions, justices said they were not sweeping aside 30 years of election finance precedent but rather finding only that Vermont's law -- the strictest in the nation -- sets limits that unconstitutionally hamstring candidates.
June 27, 2006 at 12:00 AM
1 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.Com
The Supreme Court ruled Monday that Vermont’s limits on contributions and spending in political campaigns are too restrictive and improperly hinder the ability of candidates to raise money and speak to voters.
In a fractured set of opinions, justices said they were not sweeping aside 30 years of election finance precedent but rather finding only that Vermont’s law — the strictest in the nation — sets limits that unconstitutionally hamstring candidates.
Presented by BigVoodoo
Law firms & in-house legal departments with a presence in the middle east celebrate outstanding achievement within the profession.
The premier educational and networking event for employee benefits brokers and agents.
The Legal Intelligencer honors lawyers leaving a mark on the legal community in Pennsylvania and Delaware.
Atlanta s John Marshall Law School is seeking to hire one or more full-time, visiting Legal WritingInstructors to teach Legal Research, Anal...
Lower Manhattan firm seeks a premises liability litigator (i.e., depositions, SJ motions, and/or trials) with at least 3-6 years of experien...
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of CaliforniaThe current term of office for United States Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen in...
MELICK & PORTER, LLP PROMOTES CONNECTICUT PARTNERS HOLLY ROGERS, STEVEN BANKS, and ALEXANDER AHRENS
