October Term 2002 · Docket 02-403
Can the government ban party committees from giving cash to candidates?
The dispute centers on whether national party committees may transfer cash directly to candidates.
Verified source milestones
- — 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.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Paul Clement argued that direct cash transfers to candidates create unique risks of corruption.
He stated that such transfers interfere less with First Amendment values than other forms of spending.
John Bopp countered that expressive associations are vital to the democratic republic.
He emphasized the importance of protecting the rights of these political groups.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 35-11 — Transcript, file page 19, lines 35-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-27 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 45, lines 3-7 — Transcript, file page 45, lines 3-7
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The Federal Election Commission seeks to enforce a ban on direct cash transfers from party committees to candidates. Christine Beaumont argues this ban violates the First Amendment rights of expressive associations.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 35-11 — Transcript, file page 19, lines 35-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-27 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-27
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on March 25, 2003.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
What each side wants
The Federal Election Commission wants the Court to uphold the ban on direct cash transfers from party committees to candidates.
Christine Beaumont wants the Court to strike down the ban on direct cash transfers from party committees to candidates.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 35-11 — Transcript, file page 19, lines 35-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-27 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-27
What each side says
Paul Clement argues that direct cash transfers to candidates pose unique risks of corruption and threaten democratic integrity.
John Bopp argues that expressive associations play a vital role in the democratic republic and deserve First Amendment protection.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 35-11 — Transcript, file page 19, lines 35-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-27 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-27
What the justices asked
Chief Justice Rehnquist asked if the case was submitted after the arguments concluded.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 45, lines 3-7 — Transcript, file page 45, lines 3-7
Why it matters
This case determines whether national party committees can give cash directly to candidates. It defines the boundary between permissible political spending and prohibited contributions. The outcome shapes the structure of modern political fundraising and party organization.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 35-11 — Transcript, file page 19, lines 35-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-27 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-27
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 Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 45, lines 3-7 — Transcript, file page 45, lines 3-7
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 35-11 — Transcript, file page 19, lines 35-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-27 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 35-11 — Transcript, file page 19, lines 35-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-27 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-27
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.