Suster v. Marshall’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Buckley v. Valeo · Elrod v. Burns · Califano v. Yamasaki · Anderson v. Celebrezze · In re Disbarment of Johnson
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Ujnlike a campaign contributor, a candidate’s dollars are traded not for possible political favors but for “political communication” through buying handbills, hiring halls for speeches and rallies, and purchasing advertising in broadcast and print media. Buckley, 424 U.S. at 19 , 96 S.Ct. at 634-35 . Thus, not even the governmental interest of preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption will normally “justify the restriction on the quantity of political expression imposed by ... campaign expenditure limitations.” Id. at 55 , 96 S.Ct. at 652 .... There is virtually no link between campaign expenditure limits and the prevention of corruption. Regardless of whether a candidate is pursuing judicial, legislative, or executive office, any poll.*cal favors he might owe correlate with the size of his campaign contributions, not the size of his expenditures.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The Supreme Court has stated clearly that while limiting campaign contributions may ensure the independence of elected candidates, by limiting the opportunity for “quid pro quo” political favors, limits on campaign expenditures do not have any direct nexus to this type of corruption. Buckley, 424 U.S. at 54-57 , 96 S.Ct. at 651-53 ; see also Shrink Missouri 71 F.3d at 1426. Limiting the size of campaign contributions can ensure a judge is not beholden to a large contributor; limiting the candidate’s expenditures does not have this effect. Thus, the limit on total campaign expenditures imposed by Canon 7(C)(6) is simply not narrowly tailored to achieve the state interest of ensuring the independence of the judiciary.”
1 later decision 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.