/explore
|
You are here 
|
supreme.justia.com | ||
| | | | |
www.law.cornell.edu
|
|
| | | | | [AI summary] The text discusses the legal and historical context surrounding campaign finance regulations, particularly focusing on the regulation of corporate and union political speech. It highlights key Supreme Court cases such as Buckley v. Valeo, Citizens United v. FEC, and McConnell v. FEC, which have shaped the understanding of corporate expenditures in elections. The text emphasizes the distinction between direct contributions and independent expenditures, the role of PACs, and the rationale behind restrictions on corporate spending to prevent corruption and the appearance thereof. It also references the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) and the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), noting how they have been upheld by the Court as legitimate exer... | |
| | | | |
www.chrisritchie.org
|
|
| | | | | Trump v Anderson, the Civil War, and Nelson Tift. | |
| | | | |
www.archives.gov
|
|
| | | | | EnlargeDownload Link Citation: Judgment in the U.S. Supreme Court Case Dred Scott v. John F. A. Sandford; 3/6/1857; Dred Scott, Plaintiff in Error, v. John F. A. Sandford; Appellate Jurisdiction Case Files, 1792 - 2010; Records of the Supreme Court of the United States, Record Group 267; National Archives Building, Washington, DC. View All Pages in National Archives Catalog | |
| | | | |
www.twincities.com
|
|
| | | A Manhattan judge is poised to decide whether to uphold Donald Trump's hush money verdict or dismiss it on presidential immunity grounds. Judge Juan M. Merchan has said he will rule Tuesday on the president-elect's request to toss his conviction because of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that gave presidents broad protection from prosecution. | ||
