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.
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.
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
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 ...
John Roberts' court has undone campaign finance safeguards and overturned convictions of public officials for years, most recently that of a onetime aide to Andrew Cuomo.
Citizens United was the plaintiff in a Supreme Court case that began as a challenge to various statutory provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), known as the "McCain-Feingold" law. The case revolved around the documentary Hillary: The Movie, which was produced by Citizens United.
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.
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]