enow.com Web Search

Search results

  1. Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
  2. Citizens United v. FEC - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC

    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.

  3. Citizens United (organization) - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_(organization)

    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 , which struck down as unconstitutional a federal law prohibiting corporations and unions from making expenditures in connection with federal elections.

  4. Campaign finance reform amendment - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance_reform...

    While Citizens United is the Supreme Court case most cited by advocates for a campaign finance reform amendment, the underlying precedent for extending constitutional rights to corporations under the doctrine of corporate personhood is rooted in more than a century of Supreme Court decisions dating back to the 19th century.

  5. Josh Hawley versus Citizens United: Great, but what game is ...

    www.aol.com/josh-hawley-versus-citizens-united...

    Lighter Side. Medicare. new

  6. Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipartisan_Campaign_Reform_Act

    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]

  7. American Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Bullock - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Tradition...

    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]

  8. Federalist No. 10 - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._10

    He makes an argument on how this is not possible in a pure democracy but possible in a republic. With pure democracy, he means a system in which every citizen votes directly for laws (direct democracy), and, with republic, he intends a society in which citizens elect a small body of representatives who then vote for laws (representative democracy).

  9. Federalist No. 39 - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._39

    Madison, as written in Federalist No. 10, had decided why factions cannot be controlled by pure democracy: . A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual.