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.
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]
The amendment was proposed in response to the implications presented in the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010), a U.S. constitutional law case concerning the regulation of independent political expenditures by corporations, which the nonprofit organization Citizens United challenged on the ...
There’s plenty of reason to question the Missouri senator whose big business donations dried up after he tried to reinstall Donald Trump on Jan. 6, 2021. | Opinion
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.
Federal Election Commission, however, cast considerable doubt on the constitutionality of these provisions, and in 2011 the Supreme Court held that key provisions of the Arizona law – most notably its matching fund provisions – were unconstitutional in Arizona Free Enterprise Club's Freedom Club PAC v.
(Ironically, Citizens United had filed an FEC complaint in 2004 seeking to prevent Michael Moore from releasing Fahrenheit 9/11, his documentary critical of President George W. Bush, ahead of that ...
The PAC's name is a reference to a controversial 2010 Supreme Court ruling known as Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which opened the floodgates to unlimited campaign spending ...