Buckley v Valeo - Factbites

Buckley v Valeo - Factbites
Where results make sense
About us | Why use us? | Reviews | PR | Contact us

Topic: Buckley v Valeo

Note: these results are not from the primary (high quality) database.

In the News (Thu 16 Oct 08)

Tamil Nadu

American Airlines

Bob Schieffer

Steven Gerrard

Stephen Harper

Richard Garriott

Janet Jackson

Iron Man

Steve Jobs

Atletico Madrid

	Encyclopedia: Buckley v. Valeo
		Valeo, 424 U.S.), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States upheld federal limits on campaign contributions.
		James Buckley James Lane Buckley (born March 9, 1923 in New York City) was a United States Senator from the Conservative Party of New York State from January 3, 1971 to January 3, 1977.
		A civil lawsuit was filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on January 2, 1975, by Senator James L. Buckley of New York, former Senator and 1968 presidential candidate Eugene McCarthy of Minnesota, and others.
	www.nationmaster.com /encyclopedia/Buckley-v.-Valeo (1552 words)

	ThisNation.com--Buckley v. Valeo
		It is argued, however, that the ancillary governmental interest in equalizing the relative ability of individuals and groups to influence the outcome of elections serves to justify the limitation on express advocacy of the election or defeat of candidates imposed by 608 (e) (1)'s expenditure ceiling.
		Although the Act does not focus on the ideas expressed by persons or groups subject to its regulations, it is aimed in part at equalizing the relative ability of all voters to affect electoral outcomes by placing a ceiling on expenditures for political expression by citizens and groups.
		Indeed, it is of particular importance that candidates have the unfettered opportunity to make their views known so that the electorate may intelligently evaluate the candidates' personal qualities and their positions on vital public issues before choosing among them on election day.
	www.thisnation.com /library/buckley.html (17950 words)

	CFAC: California First Amendment Coalition
		Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) (per curiam), is authority for state limits on contributions to state political candidates and whether the federal limits approved in Buckley, with or without adjustment for inflation, define the scope of permissible state limitations today.
		Buckley demonstrates that the dangers of large, corrupt contributions and the suspicion that large contributions are corrupt are neither novel nor implausible.
		Valeo, supra, the court found adequate support for the law in the proposition that large contributions raise suspicions of influence peddling tending to undermine citizens' confidence "in the integrity of...
	www.cfac.org /CaseLaw/Cases/Nixon2.html (13063 words)

	TAP: Vol 9, Iss. 36. Watch What You Wish For. Alan B. Morrison.
		The Buckley majority saw the expenditure limit as a ceiling on the total quantity of speech and contrasted that restriction with two cases in which it had found less severe intrusions to be invalid.
		Buckley involved a wholesale challenge to the 1974 law, brought by candidates, donors, and political groups of all varieties who agreed on little else than that FECA offended the First Amendment.
		If Buckley were overturned on these grounds, Sullivan, too, would be in jeopardy because it would mean that the Court had adopted the proposition that, although the First Amendment allows a person to state his views, the government has the final authority to decide how widely they may be disseminated.
	www.prospect.org /print/V9/36/morrison-a.html (3611 words)

	Case Summaries (Part 1)
		Valeo as a legal precedent upholding the constitutionality of the Act, and several other court decisions similarly upholding the constitutionality of the franking statute.
		Valeo decision, the Supreme Court had not equated contributions to political committees with contributions to candidates.
		Valeo, the landmark case involving the constitutionality of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA), as amended in 1974, and the Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act.
	www.fec.gov /info/casums1.htm (16917 words)

	New Rules Project - Governance - Campaign Finance - Buskley v. Valeo
		Soon after these amendments were passed, a motley coalition including Senator James Buckley of New York, Democratic presidential candidate Eugene McCarthy, and the New York Civil Liberties Union filed suit in federal court charging that the new provisions were unconstitutional.
		Valeo constitutes a central obstacle to effective campaign finace reform.
		Reclaim Democracy's draft Constitutional amendment to reverse Buckley v.
	www.newrules.org /gov/buckley.html (522 words)

	buckley.htm
		Buckley from the other side: even contribution limits, he reasons, are unconstitutional, for the same reason as expenditure limits.
		Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 48–49 (1975)) (defending the notion that government may sometimes restrict the speech of some “in order to enhance the relative voice of others,” a notion that has likewise long been used to defend restrictions on independent expenditures);
		Buckley’s protection of independent expenditures—“would [have to be] reconsider[ed]”).
	www1.law.ucla.edu /~volokh/buckley.htm (3092 words)

	Buck Buckley Campaign
		Valeo ruling that struck down campaign finance reforms intended to reduce the undue influence of wealthy interests on election outcomes.
		Within the next few months, the Supreme Court will decide whether to revisit its widely criticized Buckley ruling.
		In 1997, the state of Vermont decided it had enough of the outrageous cost of campaigns, and passed a law limiting the amount candidates could spend while running for Governor and other state offices.
	www.buckbuckley.com (453 words)

	Overrule Buckley v. Valeo. Money Does Not Equal Speech
		Valeo decision, the Court leaped over logic to declare that spending money to influence elections was a form of "free speech" protected by the First Amendment and largely beyond democratic control.
		The remedy is daunting but simple: reversing the baseless and profoundly anti-democratic precedent of the Buckley ruling.
		This would allow rules that make the common-sense distinction between speech as the Constitution intends--expressing one's opinion--and using economic power to overwhelm the opinions of other citizens.
	reclaimdemocracy.org /political_reform/money_notspeech.html (825 words)

	The Case for a United States Constitutional Amendment to Allow Campaign Spending Limit
		Referring to the Buckley case, he stated the case identified a "single narrow exception to the rule that limits on political activity were contrary to the First Amendment." The exception referred to the perception of undue influence of large contributors to a candidate.
		Potential challengers to Buckley depend on their view that money should not be treated as speech; thus, expenditures should not be protected by the First Amendment.
		Although the Buckley decision spelled out specifically the Court's distinction between contributions and expenditures, it neither solved the problem of campaign spending, nor did it set clear precedent.
	www.akrepublicans.org /pastlegs/opedDonley3011598.htm (6136 words)

	Money Changes Everything
		Valeo did not consider the problem of soft money--contributions made to national and state parties which are supposed to be spent on general purposes but which have a way of being spent on behalf of the candidates.
		Valeo, though ostensibly based on free speech grounds, ignores the rulebook, because it allows the holders of financial power to dominate the marketplace of ideas, in fact to dictate that every election will be a contest not of ideas, but of interests.
		The free speech rulebook, brilliantly summarized by John Milton, mandates that we must "prove all things; hold fast that which is good." The American version of the rulebook, ably described by Justice Holmes, was "the marketplace of ideas", in which the best idea triumphed, no matter what its nature.
	www.spectacle.org /1096/money.html (679 words)

	music to make out to
		Valeo sparked somewhat of a new musical renaissance in the city of Santa Barbara.
		Their eponymous swan song debut is now available on CD.
	www.homestead.com /brier/BandPage.html (24 words)

	Buckley V. Valeo - Bio
		Buckley V. Valeo is a four-piece band based in Santa Barbara.
		They sound a little bit like if the John Lennon was reincarnated as a girl and the Beatles re-did the White Album.
	www.sevensouth.com /recordshop/BuckleyV/bio.php (113 words)

	The Great Debate & Beyond : The History of Televised Presidential Debates
		Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 96 S.Ct. 612, 1976) declared that, while limits on individual contributions to campaigns were legal, Constitutional free speech provisions prevented limiting what individuals or groups could spend independently to advocate for or against a given candidate.
		Campaign finance regulations and related Supreme Court decisions in the 1970s (see the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, 1974 and amendments and Buckley v.
		Spending by independent individuals or groups on television spots has mushroomed in the 1980s and 1990s, and often such television spending has been concentrated on negative attacks on candidates (usually incumbents).
	www.museum.tv /debateweb/html/equalizer/essay_polyprocesstv.htm (3571 words)

	Proposed Constitutional Amendments to U.S. Constitution-Reclaim Democracy.org
		Valeo: It's Time to Overrule the Supreme Court and on the need to reverse First National Bank of Boston v.
		Valeo and Dominance of Wealth in Electoral Politics
		The Congress shall have the power to set limits on contributions and expenditures made to influence the outcome of any federal election.
	reclaimdemocracy.org /political_reform/proposed_constitutional_amendments.html (754 words)

	Campaign finance reform news Free Speech Election law reform
		Because Buckley and its progeny are under attack from both supporters and opponents of campaign finance restrictions, and because the Supreme Court may well move in a new direction when next called to confront these issues, anyone concerned with individual freedom must consider the First Amendment issues from the perspective of first principles…
		Campaign finance reform news, Free Speech and elections law, election reform, Buckley v.
		Valeo, soft money, hard money, issue ads, campaign contribution, issue advocacy, express advocacy
	www.campaignfinancereformnews.org /campaign_finance_reform_news.html (2662 words)

	Buckley v. Valeo - National Voting Rights Institute
		Valeo ruling, we remain optimistic that we'll be able to make the case that it's time for a change in the money and politics world.
		Because the Court now faces an opinion that challenges their 1976 Buckley v.
		The filings set the stage for the Court to revisit its 1976 Buckley v.
	www.nvri.org /buckleyvvaleo_summary.html (1429 words)

	The Heinz School - About the Heinz School
		Back to the Future of the American State: Overruling Buckley v.
		Valeo and Other Madisonian Steps, 57 U. Pitt.
		Belmont," IV, at 1528-1529; and "United States v.
	www.heinz.cmu.edu /bio/faculty/pshane.html (1521 words)

	Campaign Finance Reform in Buckley v. Valeo
		Valeo (1976) and made a momentous hash of the legislation.
		The Supreme Court considered these regulations in Buckley v.
		The verdict therefore both protects and violates free speech rights, though its arguments for the former (expenditures) apply equally to the latter (contributions).
	www.geocities.com /rationalargumentator/buckley_v_valeo.html (998 words)

	Significant United States Supreme Court Cases
		Betts appealed his conviction on the grounds that the failure of the court to appoint a lawyer to represent him denied his right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment, and his right to due process under the Fifth Amendment.
		On appeal from the Ninth Circuit's ruling that the interim background check provisions were constitutional, the Supreme Court granted certiorari and consolidated the two cases deciding this one along with Mack v.
		Federal law at the time prohibited sending material through the U.S. mail that would "stir sexual impulses and lead to sexually impure thoughts." Roth was convicted in a federal court of sending obscene advertising and an obscene book through the mail.
	www.whc.net /irish/government/ap/cases.htm (11058 words)

	Full-Time Faculty - Loyola Law School, Los Angeles
		Buckley is Dead, Long Live Buckley: The New Campaign Finance Incoherence of McConnell v.
		The Supreme Court and Election Law: Judging Equality from Baker v.
		After the Storm: The Uses, Normative Implications, and Unintended Consequences of Voting Reform Research in Post-Bush v.
	www.lls.edu /academics/faculty/hasen-full.html (1667 words)

	First Amendment Library - Case
		Congressional Research Service, "Campaign Finance Regulation Under the First Amendment: Buckley v.
		Valeo: The Special Nature of Political Speech," 1976 Supreme Court Review 1
		Marguerite M. Buckley for the Los Angeles County Central Committee of the Peace and Freedom Party
	www.firstamendmentcenter.org /faclibrary/case.aspx?case=Buckley_v_Valeo (457 words)

Try your search on: Qwika (all wikis)

Topic: Buckley v Valeo

Ads by Google

Related Topics

In the News (Thu 16 Oct 08)