{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.025, 'fraction_numerical': 0.02375, 'mean_word_length': 5.459677419354839, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Full of Surprises—and More to Come: Randall v Sorrell, the First Amendment, and Campaign Finance Regulation

On March 27, 2002, President Bush signed the BipartisanCampaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA). BCRA was a sweeping campaign finance regulation measure among whose major provisions were restrictions on political party soft money and independent corporate and union issue advertising during election campaigns. The act was immediately challenged on constitutional grounds, and complex litigation ensued in which eleven separate lawsuits were consolidated and assigned to a three-judge District Court. On December 10, 2003, the lawsuit culminated in a “stunning triumph for campaign finance reform” when in McConnell v FEC 3 a 5–4 majority of the Supreme Court sustained the act’s major provisions.