October Term 2007 · Docket 07-320

Can a law force wealthy candidates to spend more to match opponents?

A candidate argues a federal law violates free speech by forcing him to spend more money to match a poorer opponent.

Official caption
Davis 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.

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

    Andrew Herman argued the law regulates personal spending.

    General Clement argued the candidate did not limit his own spending.

    Justice Souter noted the law did not deter the candidate.

    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 if the government can regulate a candidate's personal campaign spending.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on April 22, 2008.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

The candidate wants the law struck down as a free speech violation.

The commission wants the law upheld to level the playing field.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

The candidate argues the law forces him to spend more money.

The commission argues the law does not restrict the wealthy candidate's spending.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Ginsburg asked if the law actually deters spending.

Chief Justice Roberts asked for case law supporting the candidate's claim.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

The outcome defines the limits of government power over campaign finance.

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