Federal Election Commission

In the land of politics, the more money that one has is the better. This is no exception when it comes to campaigns and elections. The goal of any political campaign is to get their nominee the votes they need to win. Whether this is through negative or positive campaign tactics, one thing can fuel a campaigns success is money. Money in a campaign means that more advertising can be bought. This is the perfect way to get the candidate seen by the public and is also a way to paint a negative picture

In 2009, Citizens United, a nonprofit organization, sued the Federal Election Commission (FEC), which led to the controversial Supreme Court case that resulted in the removal of some of the limitations on how corporations can spend money in elections. The Court majority argued that restricting independent political spending is the equivalent of disregarding the right to free speech. However, many Democrats and some Republicans believe that the power and sway of corporations have a corrupting influence

other this past decade has been the controversial Citizens United vs. the Federal Election Commission. The background of the case, as taken from the website of the FEC states the following: “The Federal Election Campaign Act (the Act) prohibits corporations and labor unions from using their general treasury funds to make electioneering communications or for speech that expressly advocates the election or defeat of a federal candidate.” With the advent of this court decision, the Supreme Court of

McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission was a 5-4 decision divided along liberal and conservative lines. Shane McCutcheon is a businessman from Alabama who donated thousands of dollars to various Republican committees and candidates. If he donated any more, he would violate the limit to aggregate contributions established in the Federal Election Campaign Act and the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. The aggregate limit capped the amount of money an individual could donate to candidates and committees

The Supreme Court Case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (FEC) greatly affected the future of American politics and government and was a major topic of discussion for many years. The case was initially argued on March 24, 2009 and it was reargued on September 9, 2009. Eventually, the Supreme Court decided on a resolution regarding the issues being argued in this case on January 21, 2010 under Roberts court. To begin with, the FEC is a bipartisan, six-member group who enforce and regulate

United v. Federal Election Commission was a 2010 Supreme Court case concerning the regulation of campaign contributions by corporations, unions, and non-profit organizations. The case is known for its holding that campaign spending by such groups is protected under the First Amendment as a form of free speech. Previous laws and court cases relevant to the case include the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, and McConnell v. Federal Election Commission. The Bipartisan

The Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case is based around the first amendment right of free speech and who is allowed to have the right thereof. Facts about the case brief are that Citizens United was the creator of a documentary film that lasted 90 minutes long and required viewers to pay to watch. The film started in theaters and then moved to DVD, after that had finished Citizens United then created a few more short ads for television that requested voters not to vote for Hillary

donations from wealthy businesses, labor unions, and individuals, right? Actually, that all changed in 2010 in a court case called “Citizens United vs Federal Election Commission” (Hasen). The Supreme Court ruled that “the First Amendment barred a federal law preventing corporations and unions from spending their own funds to influence the outcome of elections,” which does not sound too horrific or detrimental does it (Hasen)? Well, as Mr. Donald Trump would say: “Wrong!” This ruling allowed for the creation

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) was the backlash against the dark-money disaster of the 1972 reelection campaign for Richard Nixon who "raked in $20 million in secret donation[s]" (Kroll, 2012). For one thing, proponents for less stringent rules are not denying that corruption exist because contributions given directly to candidates is, but independent expenditures are not. Going back to Buckley v. Valeo (1976), "former chairman [Michael Toner] of the FEC and onetime chief counsel to the

for their beliefs in the United States of America. For many years, elections have been organized based on privately funded campaigns. When a candidate is running for presidency it becomes very expensive and difficult to manage on their own. Therefore if the candidate is wealthy, their campaign is set to go and continue. If the candidate needs financial assistance in order to