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 this case, the Supreme Court ruled that any laws that try to restrict the political spending of corporations ...
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]
These citizen contribution limits are set biannually at one percent of the median annual income of all Americans (currently less than $400), so limits adjust with inflation. However, these limited contributions can be supplemented or displaced by Congress or State Legislatures. Second, to overcome the Citizens United v.
Citizens United is a conservative 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization in the United States founded in 1988. In 2010, the organization won a U.S. Supreme Court case known as Citizens United v. FEC. The Court ruled that corporations and unions could not be prohibited from making independent expenditures in federal elections, citing First Amendment ...
Argument: Oral argument: Case history; Prior: Mixed ruling by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia: Holding; Not all political speech is protected by the First Amendment from government infringement. United States District Court for the District of Columbia affirmed in part, reversed in part. Court membership; Chief Justice
Justice Clarence Thomas, for example, invoked Federalist No. 10 in a dissent against a ruling supporting limits on campaign contributions, writing: "The Framers preferred a political system that harnessed such faction for good, preserving liberty while also ensuring good government. Rather than adopting the repressive 'cure' for faction that ...
Last week's column on Kiva and charities proved popular. So this week we're going to continue the theme, starting with the U.S. Citizens' Association's Web site and its commercials on cable TV.
Continuing what Madison began in Federalist No. 62, it is the second of two essays detailing and justifying the organization of the United States Senate. No. 63 is titled "The Senate Continued". This essay is the last of Madison's contributions to the series. [1] In this paper, Madison lays out more reasons for the necessity of the Senate.