Campaign Finance: Lawyers' Citizens United v. FEC U.S. Supreme Court Arguments (2009) | dae mul ซับไทย

คุณกำลังพยายามค้นหาเกี่ยวกับหัวข้อ Campaign Finance: Lawyers' Citizens United v. FEC U.S. Supreme Court Arguments (2009)? Leather20 นำเสนอเนื้อหาทันทีในหัวข้อของ Campaign Finance: Lawyers' Citizens United v. FEC U.S. Supreme Court Arguments (2009) ในโพสต์ด้านล่าง.

Campaign Finance: Lawyers' Citizens United v. FEC U.S. Supreme Court Arguments (2009).

[button color=”primary” size=”small” link=”#” icon=”” target=”false” nofollow=”true”]ดูรายละเอียดในวิดีโอด้านล่าง[/button]

รูปภาพธีมdae mul ซับไทยจัดทำโดย Leather20.

Campaign Finance: Lawyers' Citizens United v. FEC U.S. Supreme Court Arguments (2009)

ดูบทความเพิ่มเติมที่นี่: ที่นี่.

ดูความรู้เพิ่มเติมเกี่ยวกับCampaign Finance: Lawyers' Citizens United v. FEC U.S. Supreme Court Arguments (2009).

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the First Amendment prohibited the government from restricting independent political expenditures by corporations and unions. More:

See also  Tonari no Seki-kun - Episode 7 | tonari-no-seki-kun

The nonprofit group Citizens United wanted to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton and to advertise the film during television broadcasts in apparent violation of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (commonly known as the McCain–Feingold Act or “BCRA”). In a 5–4 decision, the Court held that portions of BCRA §203 violated the First Amendment.

The decision reached the Supreme Court on appeal from a July 2008 decision by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Section 203 of BCRA defined an “electioneering communication” as a broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that mentioned a candidate within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary, and prohibited such expenditures by corporations and unions. The lower court held that §203 of BCRA applied and prohibited Citizens United from advertising the film Hillary: The Movie in broadcasts or paying to have it shown on television within 30 days of the 2008 Democratic primaries. The Supreme Court reversed, striking down those provisions of BCRA that prohibited corporations (including nonprofit corporations) and unions from spending on “electioneering communications”.

See also  Blue Dragon Part 3- That Epic Boss Track | team medical dragon 1

The decision overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) and partially overruled McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003). The Court, however, upheld requirements for public disclosure by sponsors of advertisements (BCRA §201 and §311). The case did not involve the federal ban on direct contributions from corporations or unions to candidate campaigns or political parties, which remain illegal in races for federal office.

See also  Majo Saiban,魔女裁判 Episode 4 | dame na watashi ni koishite kudasai ep 10

.

Leather20หวังว่า ความรู้ เกี่ยวกับ dae mul ซับไทย ที่เรานำเสนอจะ นำมาซึ่งมูลค่ามากมาย สำหรับคุณ.

การค้นหาที่เกี่ยวข้องกับหัวข้อ Campaign Finance: Lawyers' Citizens United v. FEC U.S. Supreme Court Arguments (2009).

dae mul ซับไทย

Police,Cops,Crime,Court,Cop,Lawyer (Profession),Crime Fiction (Literary Genre),Attorney,Security,Judge,Criminal,Adjudicator (Profession),Arrested,Personal,Justice,Robbery,Justice (Armenia),Brutality,Supreme,Block,Bank,Case,Firm,Judy,Trial,Attorneys,Riot,Bloodhound,Cell,Accident,Enforcement,Defense,Department,Fbi

#Campaign #Finance #Lawyers39 #Citizens #United #FEC #Supreme #Court #Arguments

Campaign Finance: Lawyers' Citizens United v. FEC U.S. Supreme Court Arguments (2009).

10 thoughts on “Campaign Finance: Lawyers' Citizens United v. FEC U.S. Supreme Court Arguments (2009) | dae mul ซับไทย”

  1. How to fix this? Go higher than the Supreme Court. Amend the Constitution and ban corporations from giving money to politicians by publicly financing all elections. One person one vote. Does your vote count as much as a billionaire? It should. Join Wolf Pac and get your democracy back http://www.wolf-pac.com/. Two states (Vermont and California) have already called for a constitutional convention. Need 32 more states. Join the fight before Wolf Pac wins already.

    Reply
  2. Go ahead, Mr. Waxman, at 1:22:00 or so, correct Justice Kennedy on his general statement that "corporations have patents". And don't just correct him, laugh derisively at him first when telling him "patents belong to people, not corporations". Are you freiking kidding me?!? I know, Waxman is a liberal elitist, but still, it is no way to persuade a justice of the high court. The laugh prior to his arrogant comment just made it all the worse. Cars.

    Reply
  3. For Supreme Justices with so much obvious corporate backing to decide this case seems almost comical. Thanks for putting up the actual hearing. The legal language is a little over my head in parts but it is a way better source of information than listening to other people's opinions about it.

    Reply
  4. I love how the media was shocked by this ruling. You have Scalia, Thomas and Alito ON THE JUDICIAL RECORD believing ALL regulations on speech are Unconstitutional. You have Chief Justice Roberts ordering the re-argument, clearly foreshadowing his views, and you have Kennedy, the "swing vote", who, while sometimes dissapointing the Right, ALWAYS comes down on the side of Individual Liberty, especially against the government. This was a no-brainer. Cars.

    Reply

Leave a Comment