Sentences with phrase «v. federal election»

Under Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, corporations can spend without limit on ads for or against candidates during an election as long as their efforts are undertaken independently of political campaigns.

What makes the additional funding critical, Whatley says, is the 2010 Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that companies could spend corporate dollars on political advocacy.

Back in January, the United States Supreme Court released its judgment in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission 558 U.S. 50 (2010)[PDF], a challenge by a «non-profit corporation» to § 441b of the U.S. Code limiting election spending by corporations.

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.

This time, I decided to give Justices Scalia and Kagan a rest, so I turned to the Supreme Court's controversial recent opinion in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission.

If you're not familiar with WordRake, see my reviews of version 1.0, in which I tested its ability improve the writing of Justices Scalia and Kagan, and version 2.0, in which I tested it against the plurality, concurring and dissenting opinions in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission.

Erik Gerding thinks the discussion about the role of corporations in society isn't over, connecting two cases that would appear to be unrelated — the recent SCOTUS decision in Citizen United v. Federal Election Commission, and Google's conflict with China.

Has coverage of yesterday's Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (PDF) got your feed burner feeling a bit... well, overfed?

The question of whether corporations have constitutional rights is central to the Supreme Court's recent campaign finance case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

In a Journal News op - ed, Lawrence Norden and Frederick A.O Schwarz of the Brennan Center, wrote that Governor Cuomo's refusal to pass meaningful reform in the state budget was especially disheartening in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission.

Following the high court's decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the General Assembly passed a law in June 2010 that removed those restrictions at the state level.

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.

Opponents of campaign - finance laws hope that the case argued Tuesday — McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission — will carry on the work the justices did in Citizens United in 2010, when they struck down as unconstitutional a ban on corporations making independent expenditures in elections.

In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations and unions can be considered individuals as far as their political contributions are concerned and that restricting their ability to donate to candidates amounted to a violation of their First Amendment right of free speech.

Williams encouraged an audience at Syracuse University to fight to repeal the decision made in the landmark campaign finance court case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Committee.

Williams gave an overview of the landmark campaign finance court case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Committee, and encouraged the audience to fight to repeal the decision.

An 11 - page policy paper released by the New York Public Interest Research Group on Friday takes issue with the state Board of Elections to suspend the aggregate political contribution limits in the wake of the Supreme Court decision, McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission.

Colbert quickly learned that the Supreme Court's landmark 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission — which has given rise to something called a «Super PAC» — would make this and much more possible.

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.

In the divisive 5 - to - 4 decision, the Court's ruling on Citizens United v. the Federal Elections Commission endorsed the view that the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act restricted First Amendment rights.

Not exact matches

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CCLA CALLS ON FEDERAL ELECTION CANDIDATES TO RECOGNIZE THEIR DUTY TO UPHOLD THE CHARTER AND PROMISE TO ENSURE ACCOUNTABILITY IN LAW - MAKING Ottawa, ON — Last week, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) intervened in the Federal Court case of Schmidt v. Attorney General of Canada, arguing that (1) the government has a responsibility to -LFEDERAL ELECTION CANDIDATES TO RECOGNIZE THEIR DUTY TO UPHOLD THE CHARTER AND PROMISE TO ENSURE ACCOUNTABILITY IN LAW - MAKING Ottawa, ON — Last week, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) intervened in the Federal Court case of Schmidt v. Attorney General of Canada, arguing that (1) the government has a responsibility to -LFederal Court case of Schmidt v. Attorney General of Canada, arguing that (1) the government has a responsibility to -LSB-...]

In North Carolina Right to Life Political Action Committee v. Leake, No. 5:11 - cv -472-FL, the federal district court for the Eastern District of North Carolina similarly struck down North Carolina's judicial election matching funds provision, finding that the Supreme Court's decision in Arizona Free Enterprise Club v. Bennett controlled the case.