Supreme Court of the United States

Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government Pac

January 24, 2000528 U.S. 377

Summary

The Supreme Court reversed the Eighth Circuit and held that Buckley v. Valeo is authority for state limits on contributions to candidates for state office: such limits are constitutional if closely drawn to a sufficiently important interest, and preventing corruption and its appearance is such an interest. No dollar figure, including Buckley's $1,000 or any inflation-adjusted equivalent, is a constitutional minimum; the test is whether limits leave candidates able to amass the resources necessary for effective advocacy, which Missouri's $275-$1,075 CPI-indexed caps satisfy. The State need not produce extensive empirical proof where the corruption danger is neither novel nor implausible, and the record here (a legislator's affidavit, press accounts, prior scandals, and a 74-percent favorable statewide vote) sufficed. Justice Stevens concurred ('money is property; it is not speech'); Justices Breyer and Ginsburg concurred on a proportionality-balancing approach; and Justices Kennedy and Thomas (the latter joined by Justice Scalia) dissented, each would overrule Buckley.

Holding

  • Whether Buckley v. Valeo supplies the governing constitutional standard for state limits on contributions to candidates for state office.. Yes. Buckley is authority for comparable state regulation: a state contribution limit survives if it is closely drawn to match a sufficiently important governmental interest, and the prevention of corruption and the appearance of corruption is such an interest; the strict-scrutiny framework (compelling interest plus narrow tailoring) applied by the Eighth Circuit is not the test.
  • Whether permissible state contribution limits must be pegged to the dollar amounts approved in Buckley, adjusted for inflation.. No. No dollar amount, not Buckley's $1,000 nor any inflation-adjusted equivalent, is a constitutional minimum; the question is whether the limits are so radical in effect as to prevent candidates from amassing the resources necessary for effective advocacy, and Missouri's $275-$1,075 indexed limits pass that test.
  • Whether Missouri's contribution limits are void for want of empirical evidence of actual corruption or of voter perception of corruption.. No. The quantum of empirical evidence needed to satisfy heightened scrutiny of legislative judgments varies with the novelty and plausibility of the justification; because the dangers of large corrupt contributions are neither novel nor implausible, the record here (Senator Goode's affidavit, newspaper accounts, scandals identified in prior litigation, and the 74-percent statewide vote for limits) suffices.

Docket 98-963

Cited authorities

  • Rule 12.6
  • 18 U.S.C. §§ 608
  • R. 1
  • Mo. Rev. Stat. § 130.046
  • Mo. Rev. Stat. § 130.057
  • CA11
  • Mo. Rev. Stat. § 130.032
  • Mo. Rev. Stat. § 130.032.1

Cited by

Read full opinionPDF