About: Buckley v. Valeo     Goto   Sponge   NotDistinct   Permalink

An Entity of Type : yago:PsychologicalFeature100023100, within Data Space : dbpedia.org associated with source document(s)

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 limits on election spending in the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 § 608 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".

AttributesValues
rdf:type
rdfs:label
  • Buckley v. Valeo
  • Buckley v. Valeo
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.
  • 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 limits on election spending in the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 § 608 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".
foaf:name
  • James L. Buckley, et al. v. Francis R. Valeo, Secretary of the United States Senate, et al.
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
dct:subject
Wikipage page ID
Wikipage revision ID
Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
Faceted Search & Find service v1.17_git81 as of Jul 16 2021


Alternative Linked Data Documents: PivotViewer | ODE     Content Formats:       RDF       ODATA       Microdata      About   
This material is Open Knowledge   W3C Semantic Web Technology [RDF Data] Valid XHTML + RDFa
OpenLink Virtuoso version 08.03.3322 as of Sep 15 2021, on Linux (x86_64-generic-linux-glibc25), Single-Server Edition (61 GB total memory)
Data on this page belongs to its respective rights holders.
Virtuoso Faceted Browser Copyright © 2009-2021 OpenLink Software