Hooker v. All Campaign Contributors

Hooker v. All campaign contributors

On June 7, 2000, John Jay Hooker filed a lawsuit broadly challenging the constitutionality of all campaign contributions. Mr. Hooker alleged that campaign contributions are both a "backdoor property qualification" for voting rights and bribes of public officials and are, thus, illegal.

On October 18, 2000, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division, granted the defendants' request to dismiss this case. The court found that:

• The Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act and the Matching Payment Act, 26 U.S.C. §9001-9043, are constitutional under Buckley v. Valeo;
• The plaintiff lacked standing to challenge Congress's authority to regulate federal elections;
• The plaintiff's challenges to political contributions in federal elections failed to state a claim for relief; and
• The plaintiff's claims challenging federal election statutes are precluded by the plaintiff's prior lawsuits.

This case was subsequently argued as Hooker v. Sundquist.

Hooker v. Sundquist

On November 9, 2000, Mr. Hooker appealed this case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

On September 25, 2001, the appeals court affirmed the district court's decision dismissing this case. The court of appeals agreed with the district court that:

• John Jay Hooker was barred from challenging the constitutionality of the Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act and the Presidential Primary Matching Payment Account Act in this case because he had unsuccessfully challenged those statutes in previous litigation; and
• Mr. Hooker lacked standing to bring this case because he had not alleged that he himself had suffered a concrete, particularized injury.

Source:   FEC Record — December 2001; April 2001; January 2001; August 2000