Results 1 to 1 of 1
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
-
01-23-2010, 02:08 PM #1
- Join Date
- May 2007
- Location
- South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
- Posts
- 117,696
CITIZENS UNITED, APPELLANT v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
Opinion of Stevens, J.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
CITIZENS UNITED, APPELLANT v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
on appeal from the united states district court for the district of columbia
[January 21, 2010]
Justice Stevens, with whom Justice Ginsburg , Justice Breyer, and Justice Sotomayor join, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
The real issue in this case concerns how, not if, the appellant may finance its electioneering. Citizens United is a wealthy nonprofit corporation that runs a political action committee (PAC) with millions of dollars in assets. Under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), it could have used those assets to televise and promote Hillary: The Movie wherever and whenever it wanted to. It also could have spent unrestricted sums to broadcast Hillary at any time other than the 30 days before the last primary election. Neither Citizens United’s nor any other corporation’s speech has been “banned,â€Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)
Report: White House Considers Inviting Gaza Palestinians as...
05-01-2024, 04:27 AM in General Discussion