ABSTRACT
In Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC, 528 US 377, the US Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of a $1,075 limit on campaign contributions to statewide candidates for political office. Nixon revealed that six of nine justices were prepared in 2000 to abandon Buckley, but it also dem-onstrated that the justices held no shared position on how Buckley should be overruled. Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, writing in dissent, also supported overruling Buckley v. Valeo. Although neither party urged the Court to overrule Buckley, some legal observers believed the Court would take the opportunity to revisit its much- criticized decision. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in a concurring opinion, stated that Buckley would have to be reexamined if it did not afford legislatures sufficient leeway to protect the fairness of elections.
