First Amendment Campaign Finance (39 results)

Paperback. Condition: New. First Edition. The item is brand new, never used or read. It's in perfect condition and may include supplements and/or access codes or come shrink-wrapped.

Paperback. Condition: Very Good. No Jacket. May have limited writing in cover pages. Pages are unmarked. ~ ThriftBooks: Read More, Spend Less.

Paperback. Condition: Very Good. ***Please Read*** Small crease on top corner - No marks on text - My shelf location - 60-e-17*.

paperback. Condition: Fine.

Condition: New.

Condition: New.

Condition: New.

Paperback or Softback. Condition: New. Money, Politics, and the First Amendment: Fifty Years of Supreme Court Decisions and Campaign Finance Reforms. Book.

Condition: New. In English.

Condition: As New. Unread book in perfect condition.

paperback. Condition: LikeNew. Used Like New, no missing pages, no damage to binding, may have a remainder mark.

Paperback / softback. Condition: New. New copy - Usually dispatched within 4 working days.

Condition: New.

hardcover. Condition: Very Good.

Condition: As New. Unread book in perfect condition.

Paperback. Condition: Brand New. 488 pages. 6.14x0.97x9.21 inches. In Stock.

Condition: New. KlappentextThe BiblioGov Project is an effort to expand awareness of the public documents and records of the U.S. Government via print publications. In broadening the public understanding of government and its work, an enlightened democ.

Taschenbuch. Condition: Neu. Neuware - Money in political campaigns is a subject of endless current interest and enormous consequence for American democracy. Beginning in 1976, in Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court established a framework for public campaign regulation that declared that money constitutes 'speech' and that the only constitutional basis upon which the government can regulate money was to prohibit corruption or the appearance of corruption. The Court then defined corruption narrowly and held that direct 'contributions' to candidates could be limited on that basis but that 'expenditures,' by political candidates and others, could not. Over time as the role of money became more and more serious in politics the Court in a number of decisions seemed to be turning more willing to accept regulation. But in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the new conservative Supreme Court sharply turned against permitting regulation, including of corporations. Today that regime of nearly full protection for anyone spending virtually any amount of money for or against candidates and issues remains securely in place. The question, after a half century of this system, is whether this interpretation of the First Amendment is sound or not. If yes, then what are the justifications and what will be the consequences If not, then what are alternative interpretations and what would the world be like under each one The contributors, all scholars and experts in this area, give their interpretations and proposals.…

Taschenbuch. Condition: Neu. Neuware - This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important, and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work was reproduced from the original artifact, and remains as true to the original work as possible. Therefore, you will see the original copyright references, library stamps (as most of these works have been housed in our most important libraries around the world), and other notations in the work. This work is in the public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work.As a reproduction of a historical artifact, this work may contain missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant.…

Condition: Sehr gut. Zustand: Sehr gut | Seiten: 264 | Sprache: Englisch | Produktart: Bücher | On April 2, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down aggregate limits on how much money individuals could contribute to political candidates, parties, and committees. The McCutcheon v. FEC decision fundamentally changes how people (and corporations, thanks to Citizens United) can fund campaigns, opening the floodgates for millions of dollars in new spending, which had been curtailed by campaign finance laws going back to the early 1970s. WHEN MONEY SPEAKS is the definitive-and the first-book to explain and dissect the Supreme Court's controversial ruling in McCutcheon, including analysis of the tumultuous history of campaign finance law in the U.S. and the new legal and political repercussions likely to be felt from the Court's decision. McCutcheon has been billed as "the sequel to Citizens United," the decision giving corporations the same rights as individuals to contribute to political campaigns. Lauded by the Right as a victory for free speech, and condemned by the Left as handing the keys of our government over to the rich and powerful, the Court's ruling has inflamed a debate that is not going away anytime soon, with calls for new laws and even a constitutional amendment on the Left-while many on the Right (including Justice Clarence Thomas in his concurring opinion) call for an end to all contribution limits. Two of the nation's top First Amendment scholars-Ronald Collins and David Skover-have produced a highly engaging, incisive account of the case, including exclusive interviews with petitioner Shaun McCutcheon and other key players, as well as an eye-opening history of campaign finance law in the U.S.…

Hardback. Condition: New. New copy - Usually dispatched within 4 working days.

Condition: New.

Condition: As New. Unread book in perfect condition.

Buch. Condition: Neu. Neuware - Money in political campaigns is a subject of endless current interest and enormous consequence for American democracy. Beginning in 1976, in Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court established a framework for public campaign regulation that declared that money constitutes 'speech' and that the only constitutional basis upon which the government can regulate money was to prohibit corruption or the appearance of corruption. The Court then defined corruption narrowly and held that direct 'contributions' to candidates could be limited on that basis but that 'expenditures,' by political candidates and others, could not. Over time as the role of money became more and more serious in politics the Court in a number of decisions seemed to be turning more willing to accept regulation. But in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the new conservative Supreme Court sharply turned against permitting regulation, including of corporations. Today that regime of nearly full protection for anyone spending virtually any amount of money for or against candidates and issues remains securely in place. The question, after a half century of this system, is whether this interpretation of the First Amendment is sound or not. If yes, then what are the justifications and what will be the consequences If not, then what are alternative interpretations and what would the world be like under each one The contributors, all scholars and experts in this area, give their interpretations and proposals.…

Condition: As New. Unread book in perfect condition.

Condition: New.

Hardcover. Condition: Brand New. 488 pages. 6.13x1.13x9.25 inches. In Stock.

Condition: new. Questo è un articolo print on demand.

Paperback / softback. Condition: New. This item is printed on demand. New copy - Usually dispatched within 5-9 working days.

Paperback / softback. Condition: New. This item is printed on demand. New copy - Usually dispatched within 5-9 working days.