October Term 2002 · Docket 02-1674

Can Congress restrict party fundraising?

Lawmakers challenge federal limits on political party money.

Official caption
McConnell v. Federal Election Comm'n
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Mr. Burchfield argued Title I is fatally overbroad.

    Mr. Olson stated the issues are not new.

    Mr. Starr claimed the law intrudes deeply into political life.

    Mr. Starr argued candidates differ from political parties.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

The case tests Title I of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. This law limits how parties raise and spend money.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on September 8, 2003.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

Challengers want the law struck down.

The government wants the law upheld.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

Challengers argue the law restricts core party activities.

The government argues the restrictions are not new.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Chief Justice Rehnquist announced the court recess schedule.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines the scope of federal campaign finance power. It shapes how political parties operate nationwide.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON