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.
The case revolved around the documentary Hillary: The Movie, which was produced by Citizens United. Under the McCain-Feingold law, a federal court in Washington, D.C., ruled that Citizens United would be barred from advertising its film. [20] The case (08-205, 558 U.S. 50 (2010)) was heard in the United States Supreme Court on March
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 ...
[9] [10] After moving through lower courts, in September 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case, McConnell v. FEC. On Wednesday, December 10, 2003, the Supreme Court issued a 5–4 ruling that upheld its key provisions. [11] Since then, campaign finance limitations continued to be challenged in the Courts.
Hawley’s bill would undo a big portion of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the 2010 Supreme Court decision that unleashed a flood of corporate spending to influence American ...
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.
The Citizens United v. FEC decision, January 21, 2010, of the U.S. Supreme Court has received substantial notoriety, pushing many people to work for a constitutional amendment to overturn it. Key provisions of that decision assert in essence that money is speech and subject to first amendment protections.