seeking declaration that statutes requiring candidates to approve campaign expenditures and limiting campaign expenditures was unconstitutional
How later courts described this case
- seeking declaration that statutes requiring candidates to approve campaign expenditures and limiting campaign expenditures was unconstitutional
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Mr. Justice McEWAN,
concurring in the dissent of Mr. Justice McCLINTOCK.
The majority seek to distinguish Brim-mer from this case on the basis that in_ Brimmer there was an attorney general’s opinion that the incumbent senators could not be candidates for governor, while in this case there was no opinion. The majority-fail to recognize that in Brimnler the opinion was issued by the deputy attorney general and the attorney general himself instituted the action and asked that the incumbent senators be declared eligible to become candidates. The bringing of such an action by the attorney general must necessarily be construed as a tacit withdrawal of the opinion and tantamount to no opinion being issued. In any event, I cannot believe that a letter from a “friendly” attorney general or a cooperative county attorney could make the difference between a matter being or not being a justi-ciable controversy.