Sampson v. Buescher’s Empirical Analysis
625 F.3d 1247 · 2010
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 2 U.S.C. § 441B (§ 316 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1988
Relies on Buckley v. Valeo · United States v. Harriss · First National Bank of Boston v. X Bellotti · Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission · McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Candidate elections are, by definition, ad hominem affairs.... In contrast, when a ballot issue is before the voter, the choice is whether to approve or disapprove of discrete governmental action, such as annexing territory, floating a bond, or amending [the state constitution], No human being is being evaluated.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“allow wealthy individuals, corporations, and special interest groups to exercise a disproportionate level of influence over the political process.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“bright line below which a ballot-issue committee cannot be required to report contributions and expenditures,”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.