Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States regarding campaign finance laws and free speech under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
The case revolved around the documentary Hillary: The Movie, which was produced by Citizens United. Under the McCain-Feingold law, a federal court in Washington, D.C., ruled that Citizens United would be barred from advertising its film. [20] The case (08-205, 558 U.S. 50 (2010)) was heard in the United States Supreme Court on March
With its ruling the Supreme Court upheld its Citizens United landmark decision. [19] While the Citizens United decision initially appeared to apply equally to state contests, [20] the Supreme Court ruled in American Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Bullock that the Citizens United holding does so by applying it to Montana state law. [4]
Columnist argues Citizens United was based on a headnote on an 1886 ruling, not the ruling itself. Skip to main content. 24/7 Help. For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to ...
Hawley’s bill would undo a big portion of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the 2010 Supreme Court decision that unleashed a flood of corporate spending to influence American ...
[9] [10] After moving through lower courts, in September 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case, McConnell v. FEC. On Wednesday, December 10, 2003, the Supreme Court issued a 5–4 ruling that upheld its key provisions. [11] Since then, campaign finance limitations continued to be challenged in the Courts.
In March 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, regarding whether or not a political documentary about Hillary Clinton could be considered a political ad that must be paid for with funds regulated under the Federal Election Campaign Act. [18]
On March 27, 2012, the ACLU reaffirmed its stance in support of the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling, at the same time voicing support for expanded public financing of election campaigns and stating the organization would firmly oppose any future constitutional amendment limiting free speech. [267]