Sentences with phrase «election spending rules»

The claims by Wylie have sparked an emergency debate in the House of Commons that Vote Leave broke election spending rules in the EU referendum.

Since then, the Electoral Commission has launched its investigation into whether all the cash donated by Banks actually came from him, and whether the various campaigns he was involved with broke election spending rules.

Speaker grants emergency Commons debate on allegations about Vote Leave breaking election spending rules — as it happened

Not exact matches

If it sounds like Edwards still needed to apply FEC rules and limits, consider this: Scott Thomas, a former commissioner of the Federal Election Commission testified that he did not consider that the payments would have come under his agency's auspices — in part because they were not used directly for the campaign and did not free up any of Edwards» own money to be spent on the campaign.

In her announcement, Gillibrand criticized the 2010 Supreme Court case, Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission, which ruled that the government should not regulate the amount of money corporations and unions can spend on campaigns.

The Federal Election Commission has previously ruled that candidates and federal office holders may spend campaign funds on legal fees that are part of legal actions that would not have been necessary if they were not a candidate.

Although similar nonprofits engaged in politics in past elections, their use exploded in 2010, particularly in tandem with super PACs, taking advantage of federal court rulings that paved the way for a new role for outside - spending groups in elections.

The report argues that the current lack of rules around third parties creates a huge loophole in financing limits — essentially, anyone who wants to spend a ton of money to influence an election can simply channel it away from parties, corporations and unions and instead pour it into an interest group.

The ruling, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, No. 08 - 205, overruled two precedents: Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, a 1990 decision that upheld restrictions on corporate spending to support or oppose political candidates, and McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, a 2003 decision that upheld the part of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 that restricted campaign spending by corporations and unions.

WASHINGTON — Overruling two important precedents about the First Amendment rights of corporations, a bitterly divided Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that the government may not ban political spending by corporations in candidate elections.

While the rules governing third - party campaigns in provincial elections are problematic, the provincial government needs to lay out fair rules governing financial disclosures and amounts that third - party campaigns and lobby groups can spend influencing voters in municipal elections.

The legislative leaders quietly introduced a campaign finance bill last night that is designed to strengthen enforcement at the state Board of Elections and also address the US Supreme Court's January decision that overturned a 20 - year - old ruling barring corporations from spending freely to support or oppose candidates.

Specifically a 2010 decision ruling that corporations and unions have the right to unlimited political spending in support or opposition of candidates in elections.

The Federal Election Commission has previously ruled that candidates and federal office holders may spend campaign funds on legal fees incurred because they were a candidate.

The super PAC for the UFT may have violated campaign finance rules by not disclosing spending details for a robocall sent to voters during the 2013 primary elections

(CNN)- The Supreme Court has blocked enforcement of a ruling by Montana's highest court that upholds the state's century - long restrictions on independent political spending by outside groups in election campaigns.

In fact, until Mike Bloomberg came along, the rule was you could spend — that super rich people could spend all the money they wanted and didn't have a very good chance of winning election, all other things being equal.

In 2010, the Supreme Court issued a ruling that dramatically changed campaign finance laws, removing the cap on what outside groups, like the NRA, can spend to influence elections.

It will include fiscal rules (including rules governing election year spending), provisions for transparency and sanctions (including sanctions on the Executive when it breaches the Appropriation Act as was done brazenly in 2012).

It will include fiscal rules, including rules governing election year spending, provisions for transparency and sanctions, including sanctions on the Executive itself,» he said.

With outside spending groups expected to again play a major role in New York's 2016 elections, the state Board of Elections has posted for public comment draft rules regulating such independent expenditure coelections, the state Board of Elections has posted for public comment draft rules regulating such independent expenditure coElections has posted for public comment draft rules regulating such independent expenditure committees.

It is claimed that they donated # 650,000 to the other pro Brexit group BeLeave in the final days of the campaign and told them to spend it on data advertising by the Canadian firm Aggregate IQ - breaking election rules.

A prominent component of relevant case law is the Supreme Court decision Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which ruled unconstitutional certain restrictions on corporate campaign spending during elections.

After the landmark ethics overhaul enacted last year, the State Board of Elections has developed rules for the disclosure of spending by outside groups, but those that don't explicitly advocate for the election or defeat of a candidate are exempt from this requirement.

In real terms, these rules which exist in virtually every jurisdiction, include laws and regulations which forbid the unauthorized use of state resources for political purposes, contributions from dubious sources, violation of campaign funding limits as prescribed by enabling laws, the use of money to influence voters and election outcomes, non-disclosure of campaign spending, abuse of media, broadcasting and political advertising rules, and rules on declaration of assets, academic qualifications, health and other disclosures and internal party guidelines and rules.

Donors can give as much money as they want to a group supporting Republican NYC mayoral nominee Joe Lhota, following a ruling by a federal appeals court that could pave the way for increased outside spending in New York elections.

WASHINGTON — Overruling two important precedents about the First Amendment rights of corporations, a bitterly divided Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that the government may not ban political spending by corporations in candidate elections.

A cabinet minister has said he has «every reason to suppose» the Conservatives properly reported their 2015 general election expenses amid allegations the party breached campaign spending rules.

The law also has provisions pertaining to business relationships between lobbyists and lawmakers, changes rules about who can launch an ethics investigation and how, and requires the state Board of Elections to clarify requirements for independent campaign spending, the Associated Press reports, via the Wall Street Journal.

Among them are term limits for state legislators, election reforms like same - day voter registration and stronger anti-corruption measures, and «home rule» provisions that would give New York City more control over how it taxes and spends.

«The Supreme Court ruling on Citizens United vs. the Federal Elections Commission prevents Congress from enacting laws that limit spending on elections,» said Councilor David Elections Commission prevents Congress from enacting laws that limit spending on elections,» said Councilor David elections,» said Councilor David Marshall.

However, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled, in Newberry v. U.S. 256 U.S. 232 (1921), that Congress's authority to regulate elections did not extend to party primaries or nominations and so struck down the 1911 amendment's spending limits.

Yes, the partisan and gridlocked NYS Board of Elections ruled that spending campaign cash on junkets is permissible as long as the campaign funds only pay a portion (50 %, 75 %, 99 %?)

«I believed that if we made a principled case for ruling out a VAT rise, as well as against premature cuts in public spending, it would change the course of the election,» said Mr Balls.

That has been spent that on a variety of non-TV, radio and digital media outreach, though her campaign has not ruled out TV commercials closer to Election Day.

November 7, 2012 • This presidential election attracted $ 1.5 billion in outside spending — TV ads, robocalls and other political activity by groups created to take advantage of the new rules of campaign finance law.

In an election year with a state Supreme Court ruling hanging over their heads, Kansas lawmakers wrestled over school spending, taxes and guns.

(The rules do permit third - party election advertising, but such advertisers must register with Elections Canada, observe spending limits and reveal all funding sources).

Given Citizens United, the uncertainty over spending rules in upcoming elections, and the vast revenue base for environmental groups described in the chapter, it is not clear what conservative versus enviro / progressive spending will be in the 2012 election or future elections.

Bumper stickers, sandwich boards, pamphlets and handmade window signs expressing views on potential political issues in British Columbia do not require their creators or holders to register with British Columbia's chief electoral officer under that province's Election Act, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled today; however, «sponsors» of election advertising are required to register, no matter how little they may have spent on the adveElection Act, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled today; however, «sponsors» of election advertising are required to register, no matter how little they may have spent on the adveelection advertising are required to register, no matter how little they may have spent on the advertising.

Although he said in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that independent spending does «not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption,» Justice Kennedy authored a ruling in Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co. that mining company executive Don Blankenship's $ 3 million in independent spending for a West Virginia justice gave rise to an unconstitutional «risk of actual bias» in a lawsuit against the company.

It was not against election rules for Vote Leave to donate to Grimes or other third parties as long as the spending was not coordinated.

All campaign spending was fully declared to CCHQ as required under Conservative party leadership election rules.»