About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

12 NEXUS 153 (2007)
Buckley v. Valeo, Randall v. Sorrell, and the Future of Campaign Finance on the Roberts Courts

handle is hein.journals/nex12 and id is 161 raw text is: Buckley v. Valeo, Randall v. Sorrell, and the Future of Campaign Finance on the Roberts Court David Schultz* I. Introduction Rumors of Buckley v. Valeo's' death have been greatly exaggerated.2 Fueled both by speculation that the replacement of Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice O'Connor by President Bush appointees John Roberts and Samuel Alito would yield a conservative Court more hostile to campaign finance regulations,3 and by lit- igation in Randall v. Sorrell4 directly challenging Buckley, speculation was that the 1976 landmark campaign fi- nance case would possibly meet its de- mise.5 Instead, the decision proved that Buckley would live to see another day, its fate awaiting future conservative ap- pointments to the Supreme Court who may finally put the case out of its misery. But is Buckley's fate really sealed? Can we count on a future conservative Supreme Court to eradicate it? If the Randall v. Sorrell opinion is any indica- * Professor, Graduate School of Management, Department of Criminal Justice and Forensic Science, Hamline University, and University of Minnesota Law School. 1. Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976). 2. See e.g., Richard L. Hasen, Buckley is Dead, Long Live Buckley: The New Campaign Finance Incoher- ence of McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, 153 U. PA. L. REV. 31, 46 (2004). 3. Rick Hasen, Chief Justice Roberts? ELECTION LAW BLOG, Sept. 3, 2005, http://electionlawblog.org/ archives/003950.html; Richard Briffault, A Changing Supreme Court Considers Major Campaign Finance Questions: Randall v. Sorrell, and Wisconsin Right to Life v. FEC, 5 Election L. J. 74, 79 (2006) (contending that with two new appointments and past divisiveness on campaign finance issues, the Court was poised for a potential significant change in how it addresses the issues in this area). 4. Randall v. Sorrell, 126 S. Ct. 2479 (2006). 5. Nathan Huff, Landell v. Sorrell: Lessons Learned from Vermont's Pending Challenge to Buckley v. Valeo, 53 CATH. U. L. REV. 239, 241-42 (2003) (contending that the Vermont law at issue in this case would be the best case yet for those who wish to challenge the Buckley decision on expenditure limits).

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most