Helpful Hints
  • (1) You can search the entire content of Dean’s by phrase or by individual words. Just type your keywords into the search box and then pull down the search icon on the right and choose the option you need: search by word or by phrase or reset the content.
  • (2) Double click on a word in the content of a definition, and if the word is listed as a keyword in Dean’s, it will look that word up.
  • (3) You can use the search function to help jump the scrolling function. Simply type the first 2-3 letters into the search box then hit enter on your keyboard and the scroll will go to those Keywords that begin with those letters and allow you to scroll from there.

The Court has identified only one legitimate governmental interest for restricting campaign finances: preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption. See Davis, at 741, 128 S. Ct. 2759, 171 L. Ed. 2d 737; National Conservative Political Action Comm., 470 U.S., at 496-497, 105 S. Ct. 1459, 84 L. Ed. 2d 455. Courts have consistently rejected attempts to suppress campaign speech based on other legislative objectives. No matter how desirable it may seem, it is not an acceptable governmental objective to “level the playing field,” or to “level electoral opportunities,” or to “equalize the financial resources of candidates.” Bennett, 564 U.S., at ___, 131 S. Ct. 2806, 2827, 180 L. Ed. 2d 664, 686; Davis, supra, at 741-742, 128 S. Ct. 2759, 171 L. Ed. 2d 737; Buckley, supra, at 56, 96 S. Ct. 612, 46 L. Ed. 2d 659. The First Amendment prohibits such legislative attempts to “fine-tune” the electoral process, no matter how well intentioned. Bennett, supra, at ___, 131 S. Ct. 2806, 2825, 180 L. Ed. 2d 664, 684.

As the Court framed the relevant principle in Buckley, “the concept that government may restrict the speech of some elements of our society ...

Register or login to access full content