| dbo:abstract
|
- Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court on campaign finance. A majority of justices held that, as provided by section 608 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, limits on election expenditures are unconstitutional. In a per curiam (by the Court) opinion, they ruled that expenditure limits contravene the First Amendment provision on freedom of speech because a restriction on spending for political communication necessarily reduces the quantity of expression. It limited disclosure provisions and limited the Federal Election Commission's power. Justice Byron White dissented in part and wrote that Congress had legitimately recognized unlimited election spending "as a mortal danger against which effective preventive and curative steps must be taken". Buckley v. Valeo was extended by the U.S. Supreme Court in further cases, including in the five to four decision of First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti in 1978 and Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission in 2010. The latter held that corporations may spend from their general treasuries during elections. In 2014, McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission held that aggregate limits on political giving by an individual are unconstitutional. By some measures, Buckley is the longest opinion ever issued by the Supreme Court. (en)
- L'arrêt Buckley v. Valeo (424 U.S. 1, 1976) de la Cour suprême des États-Unis concerne le financement des campagnes électorales et le Ier Amendement sur la liberté d'expression. La décision fut donnée per curiam c'est-à-dire sans être attribuée à un juge en particulier, mais cinq juges ont délivré chacun une opinion séparée développant des points d'accord et de désaccord. (fr)
|
| dbo:thumbnail
| |
| dbo:wikiPageExternalLink
| |
| dbo:wikiPageID
| |
| dbo:wikiPageLength
|
- 29017 (xsd:nonNegativeInteger)
|
| dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
| |
| dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
| |
| dbp:arguedate
|
- 0001-11-10 (xsd:gMonthDay)
|
| dbp:argueyear
| |
| dbp:case
| |
| dbp:concurrence/dissent
|
- White (en)
- Marshall (en)
- Burger (en)
- Rehnquist (en)
- Blackmun (en)
|
| dbp:cornell
| |
| dbp:courtlistener
| |
| dbp:decidedate
|
- 0001-01-29 (xsd:gMonthDay)
|
| dbp:decideyear
| |
| dbp:fullname
|
- James L. Buckley, et al. v. Francis R. Valeo, Secretary of the United States Senate, et al. (en)
|
| dbp:googlescholar
| |
| dbp:holding
|
- Some federal limitations on campaign contributions are justified to counteract corruption, but limitations on campaign expenditures are not justified to counteract corruption. On the matter of limiting expenditures, section 608 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 is unconstitutional because it violates the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. (en)
|
| dbp:joinmajority
|
- Brennan, Stewart, Powell; Marshall ; Blackmun ; Rehnquist ; Burger ; White . (en)
|
| dbp:justia
| |
| dbp:lawsapplied
| |
| dbp:litigants
| |
| dbp:loc
| |
| dbp:majority
| |
| dbp:notparticipating
| |
| dbp:openjurist
| |
| dbp:otherSource
|
- World Legal Information Institute (en)
|
| dbp:otherUrl
| |
| dbp:oyez
| |
| dbp:parallelcitations
| |
| dbp:subsequent
| |
| dbp:uspage
| |
| dbp:usvol
| |
| dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
| |
| dcterms:subject
| |
| rdf:type
| |
| rdfs:comment
|
- L'arrêt Buckley v. Valeo (424 U.S. 1, 1976) de la Cour suprême des États-Unis concerne le financement des campagnes électorales et le Ier Amendement sur la liberté d'expression. La décision fut donnée per curiam c'est-à-dire sans être attribuée à un juge en particulier, mais cinq juges ont délivré chacun une opinion séparée développant des points d'accord et de désaccord. (fr)
- Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court on campaign finance. A majority of justices held that, as provided by section 608 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, limits on election expenditures are unconstitutional. In a per curiam (by the Court) opinion, they ruled that expenditure limits contravene the First Amendment provision on freedom of speech because a restriction on spending for political communication necessarily reduces the quantity of expression. It limited disclosure provisions and limited the Federal Election Commission's power. Justice Byron White dissented in part and wrote that Congress had legitimately recognized unlimited election spending "as a mortal danger against which effective preventive and curative steps must be (en)
|
| rdfs:label
|
- Buckley v. Valeo (en)
- Buckley v. Valeo (fr)
|
| owl:sameAs
| |
| prov:wasDerivedFrom
| |
| foaf:depiction
| |
| foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
| |
| foaf:name
|
- James L. Buckley, et al. v. Francis R. Valeo, Secretary of the United States Senate, et al. (en)
|
| is dbo:wikiPageRedirects
of | |
| is dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
of | |
| is foaf:primaryTopic
of | |
