Sonia Sotomayor Questions Attorney's Use of Prior Case in FEC Oral Arguments

Sotomayor's Skepticism of Undue Influence Rationale

• 💡 Justice Sotomayor expressed difficulty accepting the theory that the case Colorado 2 rested on an undue influence rationale.
• 📌 While Colorado 2 described prior cases as doing so, Sotomayor noted its specific reference to preventing quid pro quo corruption when discussing the coordinated expenditure rule.

Defense of Colorado 2's Rationale

• 🎯 The argument was made that Colorado 2 stands for the proposition that undue influence is a valid theory of governmental interest, a point highlighted by dissenters in McCutchen.
• ⚖️ It was contended that Colorado 2's focus on earmarking and disclosure rules, which rejected arguments similar to those presented, demonstrates its anti-corruption rationale.

Earmarking and Coordinated Expenditures

• 💰 Sotomayor questioned the sufficiency of earmarking rules, suggesting that coordinated expenditures are simply another method for a party to contribute to a candidate.
• 🤝 The historical practice of candidates asking donors to contribute to a party, knowing the party would spend on the candidate, was cited as evidence of this connection.

Colorado 2's Focus on Corruption and Contribution Limits

• 📈 Sotomayor pointed to specific sections of Colorado 2, including footnote 11 on page 456, which discusses combating the corrupting influence of large contributions.
• 💰 The focus on candidates' incentives to promote circumvention to reduce the need for time-consuming donor cultivation was also highlighted as a key aspect of Colorado 2.
• 🏛️ Reference was made to Colorado 1, which recognized that restrictions aim to prevent certain amounts from being spent for specific offices and states.