Search results
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.
Mar 26, 2018 · Updated: January 24, 2019 | Original: March 26, 2018. copy page link. Print Page. Antenna/Getty Images. In Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission (FEC), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in...
As amended by §203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), federal law prohibits corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds to make independent expenditures for speech that is an “electioneering communication” or for speech that expressly advocates the election or defeat of a candidate. 2 U. S. C. §441b.
Jan 30, 2011 · Holding: Political spending is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment, and the government may not keep corporations or unions from spending money to support or denounce individual candidates in elections.
"The decision stands for freedom and encourages participation in the political process," said Michael Boos, vice president and general counsel of Citizens United, the conservative nonprofit organization which successfully challenged federal caps on independent political spending. "Money is speech, and that is a reality.
Oct 25, 2017 · October 25, 2017 • By Brad Smith • Blog • Political Spending. More. Sometimes people ask why the Institute for Free Speech should be so concerned with protecting the rights of individuals to make expenditures and contributions to political campaigns. “Money isn’t speech,” they say.
People also ask
Is political spending a protected speech under the First Amendment?
Is political spending a form of free speech?
Is money a speech?
Is money given to political candidates a form of free speech?
Deborah Hellman. Publisher. Virginia Law Review in Brief. Date. 2012. As we enter the last phase of an election cycle marked by a huge and growing amount of money in politics, it is time to confront a central tension in the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the First Amendment.
