Wednesday, June 07, 2017

Some Kentucky libertarians won their challenge to a campaign finance rule that named the gop and democrats specifically.
winger via hasen:


from the opinion: Gables v. Patton, 142 F.3d 940, 945 (6th Cir. 1998).
I'm pretty sure that's Gable v Patton, not Gables. Gable was wrongly decided and upheld an unconstitutional disclaimer statute. Kentucky has a long history of upholding unconstitutional disclaimer statutes; what I call the Kentucky exception to the First Amendment.

The court applied strict scrutiny on speech claims, intermediate on finance claims; that seems right.

Equal protection challenges to election finance restrictions under the Fourteenth Amendment must survive “exacting scrutiny.” Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 44-45 (1976). “The restriction can be sustained only if it furthers a vital governmental interest that is achieved by a means that does not unfairly or unnecessarily          
 Case: 2:15-cv-00155-WOB-JGW Doc #: 122 Filed: 06/06/17 Page: 8 of 35 - Page ID#: 4627 9 
burden either a minority party's or an individual candidate's equally important interest in the continued availability of political opportunity.” Id. at 94 

That's a third definition of execting scrutiny that I havent noticed before. "Exacting" scrutiny can by lax, as in elsewhere in Valeo, or strict, as in McIntyre. This seems a bit more in between, but leaning toward strict. I may need to re-read the 100 page Valeo opinion again, in order to be able to use this passage when courts use Valeo as an anything goes standard.

These are off the cuff remarks while I am driving through Wisconsin with not enough sleep; I may  or may not revise this later.

Comments: Post a Comment

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?