{"title":"联合公民","authors":"","doi":"10.1287/orms.2012.05.07","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Federal law prohibits corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds to make independent expenditures for speech defined as an “electioneering communication” or for speech expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate. Limits on electioneering communications were upheld in McConnell v. Federal Election Comm. (2003). The holding of McConnell rested to a large extent on an earlier case, Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990). that held that political speech may be banned based on the speaker’s corporate identity.","PeriodicalId":143875,"journal":{"name":"Volume 39, Number 5, October 2012","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-08-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Citizens United\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1287/orms.2012.05.07\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Federal law prohibits corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds to make independent expenditures for speech defined as an “electioneering communication” or for speech expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate. Limits on electioneering communications were upheld in McConnell v. Federal Election Comm. (2003). The holding of McConnell rested to a large extent on an earlier case, Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990). that held that political speech may be banned based on the speaker’s corporate identity.\",\"PeriodicalId\":143875,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Volume 39, Number 5, October 2012\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-08-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Volume 39, Number 5, October 2012\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1287/orms.2012.05.07\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Volume 39, Number 5, October 2012","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1287/orms.2012.05.07","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
摘要
联邦法律禁止公司和工会使用其一般财政资金为被定义为“竞选宣传”的言论或明确主张当选或击败某位候选人的言论进行独立支出。在麦康奈尔诉联邦选举委员会案(2003)中，对竞选通讯的限制得到了支持。麦康奈尔案的判决在很大程度上是基于一个更早的案件，奥斯汀诉密歇根商会案(Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 1990)。该裁决认为，政治言论可能会因演讲者的公司身份而被禁止。
Federal law prohibits corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds to make independent expenditures for speech defined as an “electioneering communication” or for speech expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate. Limits on electioneering communications were upheld in McConnell v. Federal Election Comm. (2003). The holding of McConnell rested to a large extent on an earlier case, Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990). that held that political speech may be banned based on the speaker’s corporate identity.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
