Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

McConnell v. Federal Election Commission

District Court, District of Columbia

Decided May 1, 2003No. 02-582 CKK,KLH,RJL, 02-581 CKK,KLH,RJL, 02-633 CKK,KLH,RJL, 02-751 CKK,KLH,RJL, 02-753 CKK,KLH,RJL, 02-754 CKK,KLH,RJL, 02-781 CKK,KLH,RJL, 02-874 CKK,KLH,RJL, 02-875 CKK,KLH,RJLPublished

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partKaren Lecraft Henderson, Circuit Judge

“To an imagination of any scope the most far-reaching form of power is not money, it is the command of ideas.”

—Oliver Wendell Holmes, The Path of the Law, 10 Harv. L. Rev. 457, 478 (1897).

I believe the statute before us is unconstitutional in virtually all of its particulars; it breaks faith with the fundamental principle — understood by our nation’s Founding Generation, inscribed in the First Amendment and repeatedly reaffirmed by the United States Supreme Court — that “debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.” New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270,…

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API