recognizing that whether restrictions impose too .stringent of a burden on political speech depends in part on whether the restrictions prevent the candidate from “effectively amassing the resources necessary to wage an effective campaign”
How later courts described this case
- recognizing that whether restrictions impose too .stringent of a burden on political speech depends in part on whether the restrictions prevent the candidate from “effectively amassing the resources necessary to wage an effective campaign”
- holding that political party had standing to challenge expenditure and contribution limits where evidence showed it had met the proscribed limits and would have spent more but for the limits
- stating that the court's role is not to create arguments for adjudication but to adjudicate arguments presented
- noting that the role of the court is “not to create arguments for adjudication” or “raise [them] like a Phoenix from the ashes[,]” but “rather, [the court’s] role is to adjudicate the arguments with which [it is] presented”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
E. GRADY JOLLY, Circuit Judge,
concurring in result:
I concur in the result reached by the majority because I agree that it reflects the more accurate and realistic way the case has been presented for decision. There is much to admire in Chief Judge Jones’s dissent, and if I agreed that the argument she addresses was the question that plaintiffs were actually presenting for decision, I would concur in her opinion. Judge Clement has written clearly but broadly. In my view, she does not merely challenge the statute’s express provisions that effectively bar a Party from coordinating its efforts with the campaign of a candidate, but also the Supreme Court’s ruling that essentially upholds this provision. Both she and Chief Judge Jones ultimately may be correct. But, in my opinion, not today.