This is a first for this blog. See Michael J. Ushkow, Judiical Supervision of Campaign Information: A Proposal to Stop the Dangerous Erosion of Madison’s Design for Actual Representation, 34 Hofstra L. Rev. 263, 287 n.201 (2005) (available on Westlaw here. Here is the footnote:

[FN201]. Holman, supra note 197, at 245. The Supreme Court will revisit the issue of candidate spending limits in Landell v. Sorrell, 382 F.3d 91 (2d Cir. 2002), cert. granted, 74 U.S.L.W. 3199 (U.S. Sept. 27, 2005) (No. 04- 1528). The Second Circuit determined that the interests of avoiding corruption or the appearance of corruption, and preventing elected officials from focusing so much attention on fundraising efforts, justifies Vermont’s restrictions. See generally Charles Lane, High Court to Decide Campaign Finance Cases, Wash. Post, Sept. 28. 2005, at A04. Nevertheless, election law expert, Professor Rick Hasen, is among those predicting that the Court will reverse the Second Circuit, thus affirming Buckley’s holding on expenditure limits. See Breaking News: Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Two Campaign Finance Cases; A New Era in the Court’s Jurisprudence?, https://electionlawblog.org/archives/004069.html (Sept. 27, 2005, 6:21 EST).