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.
First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765 (1978), is a U.S. constitutional law case which defined the free speech right of corporations for the first time. . The United States Supreme Court held that corporations have a First Amendment right to make contributions to ballot initiative campaigns
McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, 572 U.S. 185 (2014), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court on campaign finance.The decision held that Section 441 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, which imposed a limit on contributions an individual can make over a two-year period to all national party and federal candidate committees, is unconstitutional.
At a Senate hearing in March at which Attorney General Merrick Garland testified about budget issues, ... Free speech concerns. The Supreme Court in a 1965 case called Cox v.
The Supreme Court handed a temporary win to social media giants like Facebook (), YouTube (GOOG, GOOGL), and TikTok as it sent a set of free speech cases back to the lower courts.But the unanimous ...
Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652 (1990), was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States regarding campaign finance regulations. The majority opinion authored by Thurgood Marshall held that the Michigan Campaign Finance Act, which burdened political speech by prohibiting corporations from using treasury money to make independent expenditures to support or oppose ...
The Supreme Court on Friday will hear oral arguments about a U.S. law requiring TikTok to either divest from its Chinese parent company, ByteDance, or be banned from operating in the U.S. It's a ...
[5] [6] The Supreme Court's 1977 ruling granted certiorari and reversed and remanded the Illinois Supreme Court's denial to lift the lower court's injunction on the NSPA's march. [7] In other words: the courts decided a person's assertion that speech is being restrained must be reviewed immediately by the judiciary. [ 8 ]