Ognibene v. Parkes’s Empirical Analysis
671 F.3d 174 · 2011
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 10 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 2 U.S.C. § 441C (§ 317 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971) · 42 U.S.C. § 1973 (§ 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965)
Relies on New York Times Co. v. Sullivan · Buckley v. Valeo · Ward v. Rock Against Racism · Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission · Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc.
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“experience 'demonstrates how candidates, donors, and parties test the limits of the current law, and ... how contribution limits would be eroded if inducement to circumvent them were enhanced' " [citation omitted] ). 7 It would also be unrealistic for a court to require the Legislature to wait for evidence of widespread quid pro quo corruption resulting from corporate contributions before taking steps to prevent such corruption. "There is no reason to require the [L]egislature to experience the very problem it fears before taking appropriate prophylactic measures.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In other words, because the scope of quid pro quo corruption can never be reliably ascertained, the legislature may regulate certain indicators of such corruption or its appearance, such as when donors make large contributions because they have business with the City, hope to do business with the City, or are expending money on behalf of others who do business with the City. Furthermore, such donations certainly feed the public perception of quid pro quo corruption, and this alone justifies limitations or perhaps an outright ban.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Yamada v. Weaver“[T]he anti-circumvention interest is part of the familiar anti-corruption rationale .... [N]othing in the explicit holdings or broad reasoning of Citizens United ... invalidates the anticircumvention interest in the context of limitations on direct candidate contributions”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.