联合公民

{"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。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Citizens United
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信