Tobacco.org

• In Year of Florida Vote, Supreme Court Also Did Much Other Work 

The court reiterated its view of the potentially corrupting influence of money in politics, upholding a federal limit on the amount parties may spend in coordination with their own candidates. To exempt parties from the limits, as the Colorado Republican Party requested, would be to invite circumvention of other limits, Justice Souter said in Federal Election Commission v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee, No. 00-191. Justices Thomas, Kennedy and Scalia and Chief Justice Rehnquist dissented.

The court upheld the right of the tobacco industry to advertise its products to adult consumers, striking down a far-reaching advertising ban in Massachusetts. While taking different approaches to the case, all nine justices basically agreed in Lorillard Tobacco v. Reilly, No. 00-596, that the ban violated the tobacco advertisers' First Amendment rights. The court also found the state restrictions on advertising for cigarettes, as opposed to cigars and smokeless tobacco, to be pre-empted by federal law. The pre-emption analysis was 5 to 4. Justice O'Connor's opinion was joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and by Justices Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy. . .

The court reiterated its view of the potentially corrupting influence of money in politics, upholding a federal limit on the amount parties may spend in coordination with their own candidates. To exempt parties from the limits, as the Colorado Republican Party requested, would be to invite circumvention of other limits, Justice Souter said in Federal Election Commission v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee, No. 00-191. Justices Thomas, Kennedy and Scalia and Chief Justice Rehnquist dissented.

The court upheld the right of the tobacco industry to advertise its products to adult consumers, striking down a far-reaching advertising ban in Massachusetts. While taking different approaches to the case, all nine justices basically agreed in Lorillard Tobacco v. Reilly, No. 00-596, that the ban violated the tobacco advertisers' First Amendment rights. The court also found the state restrictions on advertising for cigarettes, as opposed to cigars and smokeless tobacco, to be pre-empted by federal law. The pre-emption analysis was 5 to 4. Justice O'Connor's opinion was joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and by Justices Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy.

Jump to full article »