McConnell v. Federal Election Commission

E669893

McConnell v. Federal Election Commission is a 2003 U.S. Supreme Court case that largely upheld the constitutionality of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (McCain–Feingold Act), significantly shaping modern campaign finance law.

Try in SPARQL Jump to: Statements Referenced by

Statements (49)

Predicate Object
instanceOf United States Supreme Court case
campaign finance case
constitutional law case
hasAlternativeName McConnell v. FEC NERFINISHED
McConnell v. Federal Election Comm’n NERFINISHED
hasAreaOfLaw First Amendment law NERFINISHED
campaign finance law
hasArguedDate September 8, 2003
hasChiefJustice William H. Rehnquist NERFINISHED
hasCitation 540 U.S. 93
hasConstitutionalProvisionAtIssue Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution NERFINISHED
First Amendment to the United States Constitution NERFINISHED
hasCountry United States of America
surface form: United States
hasCourt Supreme Court of the United States NERFINISHED
hasDecisionDate December 10, 2003
hasDissentingJustice Anthony M. Kennedy NERFINISHED
Antonin Scalia NERFINISHED
Clarence Thomas NERFINISHED
Sandra Day O’Connor NERFINISHED
Stephen G. Breyer NERFINISHED
William H. Rehnquist NERFINISHED
hasDocketNumber 02-1674
02-1675
hasFullCaseName Mitch McConnell, United States Senator, et al. v. Federal Election Commission et al. NERFINISHED
hasImpactOn modern U.S. campaign finance regime
regulation of electioneering communications
regulation of soft money in federal elections
hasJoinedMajority David H. Souter NERFINISHED
John Paul Stevens NERFINISHED
Ruth Bader Ginsburg NERFINISHED
Sandra Day O’Connor NERFINISHED
Stephen G. Breyer NERFINISHED
hasMajorityOpinionBy John Paul Stevens NERFINISHED
Sandra Day O’Connor NERFINISHED
hasPetitioner Mitch McConnell NERFINISHED
National Rifle Association NERFINISHED
hasRearguedDate September 9, 2003
hasRespondent Federal Election Commission NERFINISHED
United States NERFINISHED
hasStatuteAtIssue Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 NERFINISHED
held that many disclosure and reporting requirements in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act are constitutional
that restrictions on soft money contributions to national political parties are constitutional
isRelatedCase Buckley v. Valeo NERFINISHED
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission NERFINISHED
Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. v. Federal Election Commission NERFINISHED
limitedOverruledBy Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission NERFINISHED
Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. v. Federal Election Commission NERFINISHED
upheldConstitutionalityOf Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act electioneering communications provisions NERFINISHED
Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act soft money ban

Referenced by (3)

Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.

Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act challengedInCase McConnell v. Federal Election Commission
Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce relatedCase McConnell v. Federal Election Commission
Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act upheldInPartBy McConnell v. Federal Election Commission