QUESTIONS PRESENTED
- Whether the district court erred by upholding portions of
the "soft money" provision (section 101) of the
Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), Pub. L. No.
107-155, 166 Stat. 81, because it constitutes an invalid exercise
of Congress' power to regulate elections under Article I, Section
4, of the Constitution; violates the First Amendment or the equal
protection component of the Fifth Amendment; or is
unconstitutionally vague.
- Whether the district court erred by upholding portions of
the "electioneering communications" provisions (sections 201, 203,
204, and 311), of BCRA, because they violate the First Amendment
or the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment, or are
unconstitutionally vague.
- Whether the district court erred by holding nonjusticiable
challenges to, and upholding, portions of the "advance notice"
provisions of BCRA (sections 201 and 212), because they violate
the First Amendment.
- Whether the district court erred by holding nonjusticiable
challenges to, and upholding, the "coordination" provisions of
BCRA (sections 202, 211, and 214), because they violate the First
Amendment.
- Whether the district court erred by holding nonjusticiable
challenges to, and upholding, the "attack ad" provision of BCRA
(section 305), because it violates the First Amendment.
|
|
|