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.
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.
Campaign finance law in the United States changed drastically in the wake of two 2010 judicial opinions: the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. FEC and the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decision in SpeechNow.org v.
The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a campaign finance law limiting the amount candidates and parties can spend in coordination with each other in a decision handed down in NRSC v. FEC on ...
The case before the U.S. Supreme Court, pursued by the conservative legal group Liberty Justice Center, involved only a challenge to the campaign-finance requirements of the Alaska measure.
The Supreme Court struck down a provision of campaign finance law involving large loans from candidates to their own campaigns on Monday in a victory for Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas.
Judge Wickham's ruling was eventually overturned on appeal in April 2007, with the Washington Supreme Court holding that on-air commentary was not covered by the State's campaign finance laws (No New Gas Tax v. San Juan County). [12] In 2006, the United States Supreme Court issued two decisions on campaign finance. In Federal Election Commission v.
Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court on campaign finance.A majority of justices held that, as provided by section 608 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, limits on election expenditures are unconstitutional.