|
You are here |
zesty.ca | ||
| | | | |
educatedguesswork.org
|
|
| | | | | ||
| | | | |
pavpanchekha.com
|
|
| | | | | ||
| | | | |
bldavies.com
|
|
| | | | | Earlier this month the k?k?p? was elected Bird of the Year for 2020. The news prompted me to review the results of last year's election, in which the k?k?p? lost narrowly to the yellow-eyed penguin. In particular, I wanted to determine whether the 2019 results were sensitive to the method used to aggregate voters' preferences. This post summarises my findings: different methods deliver (slightly) different outcomes, and at least one method would have crowned the k?k?p?. | |
| | | | |
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... | ||