McConnell, United States Senator v. Federal Election Commission

Summary

Through three majority opinions, the Court largely upheld the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. Stevens and O'Connor, joined by Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, upheld Title I's soft-money restrictions and most challenged Title II provisions, including electioneering-communication disclosure requirements and restrictions on corporate and union treasury financing, but invalidated the requirement that political parties choose between independent and coordinated expenditures. Rehnquist's majority opinion affirmed the challenged Title III and IV rulings, including dismissals for lack of standing, sponsor-identification requirements, and invalidation of the ban on minors' contributions. Breyer, joined by Stevens, O'Connor, Souter, and Ginsburg, upheld broadcasters' political-record requirements. Scalia separately argued that the principal restrictions suppressed political criticism and protected incumbents. Thomas would apply strict scrutiny, reject the principal restrictions and disclosure requirements, and overrule Buckley and Austin; Scalia joined Parts I, II-A, and II-B. Kennedy, joined by Rehnquist, with Scalia joining except concerning provisions Kennedy upheld and Thomas joining concerning § 213, would invalidate most soft-money and electioneering restrictions while sustaining restrictions on federal candidates' soft-money activity and certain disclosure and candidate-coordination provisions. Rehnquist, joined by Scalia and Kennedy, separately opposed Titles I and V. Stevens, joined by Ginsburg and Breyer, would reach and uphold § 305 rather than dismiss its challenge for lack of standing. The overall judgment was affirmed in part and reversed in part. Required outside confirmation could not be performed because no external-source access was available; this analysis rests on the supplied opinion text.