请输入您要查询的百科知识：

　

词条 McCutcheon v. FEC
释义

  1. Background

      U.S. District Court  

  2. Decision

      Concurrence and dissent  

  3. Reactions

  4. See also

  5. References

  6. External links

{{Use mdy dates|date=April 2014}}{{Infobox SCOTUS case
|Litigants=McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission
|ArgueDate=October 8
|ArgueYear=2013
|DecideDate=April 2
|DecideYear=2014
|FullName=Shaun McCutcheon, et al., Appellants v. Federal Election Commission
|USVol=572
|USPage=___
|ParallelCitations=134 S. Ct. 1434; 188 L. Ed. 2d 468
|Docket=12-536
|OralArgument=https://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2013/2013_12_536/argument
|OralReargument =
|OpinionAnnouncement =
|Prior=893 F. Supp. 2d [https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20121016757 133] (D.D.C. 2012)
|Subsequent=
|Holding= Aggregate contribution limits to campaign finance violate the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.
|SCOTUS=2010-2016
|Plurality=Roberts
|JoinPlurality=Scalia, Kennedy, Alito
|Concurrence=Thomas
|Dissent=Breyer
|JoinDissent=Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan
|LawsApplied=U.S. Const. amend. I
}}McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, 572 U.S. 185 (2014), is a landmark campaign finance decision of the United States Supreme Court. The decision held that Section 441 of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), which imposed a limit on contributions an individual can make over a two-year period to national party and federal candidate committees, is unconstitutional.[1]

The case was argued before the Supreme Court on October 8, 2013,[2] being brought on appeal after the United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the challenge. It was decided on April 2, 2014, by a 5–4 vote,[3] reversing the decision below and remanding. Justices Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, and Alito invalidated "aggregate contribution limits" (amounts one can contribute over the two-year period) as violating the First Amendment. Justice Thomas provided the necessary fifth vote, but concurred separately in the judgment while arguing that all contribution limits are unconstitutional.

Background

The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) was first passed in 1971.[4] Amendments to FECA in 1974, after the Watergate Scandal, limited the total amount of direct contributions an individual could make to national political parties and federal candidates in a given year.[5][6] These "aggregate contribution limits" were subsequently upheld in Buckley v. Valeo (1976).[5] The Court's decision in Valeo recognized that independent contributions were protected speech, but also held that the aggregate contribution limits were constitutional because the government had a compelling interest in preventing "corruption" and the "appearance of corruption".[7][8]

In 2002, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) was passed. The BCRA revised the aggregate limits, adjusted them to future (but not past) inflation, and changed the individual limitations from annual to biennial;[9] The aggregate contribution ceiling on individuals during the 2011-2012 election cycle stood at $46,200 for federal candidates and $70,800 for national parties, or a $117,000 aggregate limit.[10]

Plaintiff Shaun McCutcheon is a businessman and electrical engineer from suburban Birmingham, Alabama, who is a campaign contributor and self described activist of the Republican Party.[11][12] The founder and CEO of Coalmont Electrical Development Corporation, McCutcheon began donating to Republican candidates in the late 1990s, and would ultimately join the Jefferson County Republican Party Executive Committee.[14] At a 2011 Young Conservatives Coalition event, McCutcheon met attorney and campaign finance expert Dan Backer, who would play a major role in encouraging McCutcheon to file suit against the FEC.[13] As of September 2012, McCutcheon had given $33,088 to sixteen federal candidates and over $25,000 in non-candidate contributions during the 2011-2012 cycle.[6] McCutcheon intended on donating to an additional twelve federal candidates, bringing his contribution total over the federal aggregate limit on federal candidates.[14] McCutcheon filed suit against the Federal Election Commission (FEC), where he was joined in his lawsuit by the Republican National Committee.[15]

U.S. District Court

On June 22, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a Verified Complaint before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, asking the court to revisit the precedent set in the Buckley case and calling the limits on contributions to federally elected candidates a "burden on speech and association."[16] The case was heard by a three-judge court, with judges James E. Boasberg, Janice Rogers Brown and Robert L. Wilkins designated to hear the case.[17]

On September 28, 2012, the U.S. District Court granted the FEC's motion to dismiss; upholding the aggregate limits.[18] The court held that:

{{quote|The government may justify the aggregate limits as a means of preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption, or as a means of preventing circumvention of contribution limits imposed to further its anticorruption interest.[19]}}

On October 9, 2012, the plaintiffs filed an appeal to the Supreme Court; the Court granted certiorari on February 19, 2013.[18][20]

Decision

The court heard oral arguments on October 8, 2013.[21] Erin E. Murphy, counsel at Bancroft PLLC, argued for the appellants.[22] Attorney Michael T. Morley was counsel of record for Appellant McCutcheon and was primarily responsible for preparing his principal brief. United States Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr. argued for the appellees: the Federal Election Commission and the Obama administration.[22]

On April 2, 2014, the court ruled, 5–4, for the appellants. While the ruling overturned limits on aggregate federal campaign contributions, it did not affect limits on how much individuals can give to an individual politician's campaign, which remain at $2,700 per election.[23][24] Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the legal opinion, "The government may no more restrict how many candidates or causes a donor may support than it may tell a newspaper how many candidates it may endorse."[25]

Concurrence and dissent

{{primary sources|section|date=April 2014}}

Justice Thomas concurred in the judgment but wished to go further and abolish all campaign contribution limits: "limiting the amount of money a person may give to a candidate does impose a direct restraint on his political communication." He rejected the rationale of Buckley v. Valeo that "[a] contribution serves as a general expression of support for the candidate and his views, but does not communicate the underlying basis for the support" since "this Court has never required a speaker to explain the reasons for his position in order to obtain full First Amendment protection."

Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan dissented, arguing that the decision "creates a loophole that will allow a single individual to contribute millions of dollars to a political party or to a candidate's campaign. Taken together with Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm'n, 558 U. S. 310 (2010), today's decision eviscerates our Nation's campaign finance laws, leaving a remnant incapable of dealing with the grave problems of democratic legitimacy that those laws were intended to resolve."[26]

Reactions

In response to the decision, a coalition of environmental, voting rights, labor, and government reform groups rallied outside of the Supreme Court.[27] Environmentalists from Greenpeace and the Sierra Club protested what Phil Radford of Greenpeace called a "legalized system of corruption through money in politics" that had resulted in few major environmental laws passing in the U.S. since 1980.[28]

Writing for The Nation, Ari Berman wrote, "The Court's conservative majority believes that the First Amendment gives wealthy donors and powerful corporations the carte blanche right to buy an election but that the Fifteenth Amendment does not give Americans the right to vote free of racial discrimination."[29]

Countering Berman's quote, Robert J. Samuelson pointed out that "the rich" is not one single block but that it has many different factions. He added that money does not "guarantee victory. After a certain point, more money hits the law of diminishing returns. It can be and is misspent."[30] Samuelson also said that there are poor politicians who cannot communicate and so need money "to hire campaign staff, build a website, buy political spots and the like" to "affect how people behave."[30]

The Center for Competitive Politics, a leading group advocating for deregulation of campaign finance, heralded the decision in a statement: "the Court's conclusion was common sense: the law limited an individual to contributing the legal maximum to just 18 candidates. If the first 18 aren't 'corrupted' by the contribution, why is candidate 19? What's remarkable is that four justices of the Supreme Court continue to believe that such overt limitations on political speech are constitutional. Moreover, to reach that conclusion the dissenters relied on a series of preposterous hypotheticals bearing no resemblance to reality."[31]

In The New Yorker, Jeffrey Toobin wrote that "the language of Chief Justice John Roberts's opinion suggests that the Court remains committed to the project announced most prominently in the Citizens United case, four years ago: the deregulation of American political campaigns."[32]

Only 30 hours after the McCutcheon case came down, Professors Ronald K. L. Collins and David Skover published an 80,000-word narrative account of the history of the case, which included an analysis of the Court's opinion. The e-book is titled When Money Speaks: The McCutcheon Decision, Campaign Finance Laws & the First Amendment (Top Five Books, 2014).

Following the decision, SCOTUSblog published a symposium on the case with a foreword by Collins and Skover as well as commentaries by Floyd Abrams, Jan Baran, Rick Hasen, Burt Neuborne, Ilya Shapiro, Paul M. Smith, and Fred Wertheimer (April 3–4, 2014).

See also

  • James Bopp
  • US corporate law
  • Corporate personhood
  • Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
  • Buckley v. Valeo

References

1. ^{{cite web |url=http://www.fec.gov/law/litigation/McCutcheon.shtml#ac |title=McCutcheon, et al. v. FEC Case Summary |publisher=Federal Election Commission |access-date=October 27, 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160928215825/http://www.fec.gov/law/litigation/McCutcheon.shtml#ac |archive-date=September 28, 2016 |dead-url=no |df=mdy-all }}
2. ^{{cite web |url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_calendars/MonthlyArgumentCalOct2013.pdf |title=SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OCTOBER TERM 2013 |publisher=Supreme Court of the United States |date=July 23, 2013 |access-date=June 27, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170215080731/https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_calendars/MonthlyArgumentCalOct2013.pdf |archive-date=February 15, 2017 |dead-url=no |df=mdy-all }}
3. ^{{ussc|name=McCutcheon v. FEC|volume=572|year=2014|docket=12-536}}.
4. ^{{cite web |url=http://www.fec.gov/info/appfour.htm |title=The Federal Election Campaign Laws:A Short History |publisher=Federal Election Commission |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20050730082922/http://www.fec.gov/info/appfour.htm |archivedate=July 30, 2005 |df=mdy-all }}
5. ^1 {{Cite book| publisher = Oxford University Press| isbn = 978-0-19-027468-9| last = Mutch| first = Robert E.| title = Campaign Finance: What Everyone Needs to Know| date = 2016}}
6. ^1 {{cite web |url=http://www.fec.gov/law/litigation/mccutcheon_dc_memo_opinion.pdf |title=SHAUN MCCUTCHEON, et al., Plaintiffs, FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION |author=United States District Court for the District of Columbia |publisher=Federal Election Commission |date=September 28, 2012 |access-date=November 7, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131101220642/http://www.fec.gov/law/litigation/mccutcheon_dc_memo_opinion.pdf |archive-date=November 1, 2013 |dead-url=no |df=mdy-all }}
7. ^{{Cite book| publisher = Princeton University Press| isbn = 978-1-4008-2471-7| last = Smith| first = Bradley A.| title = Unfree Speech: The Folly of Campaign Finance Reform| date = 2009-02-09|page=122}}
8. ^{{Cite news| issn = 0362-4331| last = Liptak| first = Adam| title = Supreme Court Again Weighs Spending Limits in Campaigns| work = The New York Times| accessdate = 2018-08-05| date = 2013-10-08| url = https://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/09/us/politics/supreme-court-weighs-campaign-contribution-limits.html}}
9. ^{{cite web |url=https://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/41338.pdf |title=Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002: Summary and Comparison with Previous Law |author=Joseph E. Cantor, L. Paige Whitaker |publisher=United States Department of State |date=January 9, 2004 |access-date=June 25, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170809212305/https://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/41338.pdf |archive-date=August 9, 2017 |dead-url=no |df=mdy-all }}
10. ^{{cite web |url=http://wcfia.harvard.edu/publications/treat-millionaires-they%E2%80%99re-billionaires |title=Treat Millionaires Like They're Billionaires |author=Noah Feldman |publisher=Harvard University Weatherhead Center for International Affairs |year=2013 |access-date=November 7, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131202233754/http://wcfia.harvard.edu/publications/treat-millionaires-they%E2%80%99re-billionaires |archive-date=December 2, 2013 |dead-url=no |df=mdy-all }}
11. ^{{cite web |url=http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/10/08/meet-shaun-mccutcheon-the-republican-activist-trying-to-make-history-at-the-supreme-court.html |title=Meet Shaun McCutcheon, the Republican Activist Trying to Make History at the Supreme Court |author=Ben Jacobs |work=The Daily Beast |date=October 8, 2013 |access-date=October 3, 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141006073646/http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/10/08/meet-shaun-mccutcheon-the-republican-activist-trying-to-make-history-at-the-supreme-court.html |archive-date=October 6, 2014 |dead-url=no |df=mdy-all }}
12. ^{{cite web |url=http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/mccutcheon-how-campaign-spending-caps-hurt-american-democracy-97834.html?hp=l6 |title=Donation caps hurt democracy |author=Shaun McCutcheon |work=Politico |date=October 6, 2013 |access-date=October 3, 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141007220452/http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/mccutcheon-how-campaign-spending-caps-hurt-american-democracy-97834.html?hp=l6 |archive-date=October 7, 2014 |dead-url=no |df=mdy-all }}
13. ^1 {{cite news|last=Frizell|first=Same|title=The Alabama Engineer Who Made History At the Supreme Court|url=http://time.com/47236/shaun-mccutcheon-interview-supreme-court-campaign-finance/|accessdate=April 2, 2014|newspaper=Time|date=April 2, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140402200942/http://time.com/47236/shaun-mccutcheon-interview-supreme-court-campaign-finance/|archive-date=April 2, 2014|dead-url=no|df=mdy-all}}
14. ^{{cite web |url=http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2012cv01034/154907/1/0.pdf?1340769930 |title=MCCUTCHEON et al v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Verified Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief |author=United States District Court for the District of Columbia |publisher=justia.com |date=June 22, 2012 |access-date=November 7, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140407063500/http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2012cv01034/154907/1/0.pdf?1340769930 |archive-date=April 7, 2014 |dead-url=no |df=mdy-all }}
15. ^{{cite web |url=http://www.jamesmadisoncenter.org/cases/files/2013/mccutcheon/RNC.pdf |title=Supreme Court of the United States Shaun McCutcheon and Republican National Committee, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. Federal Election Commission |publisher=James Madison Center for Free Speech |date=August 16, 2013 |access-date=October 3, 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140407230020/http://www.jamesmadisoncenter.org/cases/files/2013/mccutcheon/RNC.pdf |archive-date=April 7, 2014 |dead-url=no |df=mdy-all }}
16. ^{{cite web |url=http://www.fec.gov/law/litigation/mccutcheon_mccutcheon_complaint.pdf |title=Verified Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief |author=United States District Court for the District of Columbia |publisher=Federal Election Commission |date=June 22, 2012 |access-date=November 7, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131014154004/http://www.fec.gov/law/litigation/mccutcheon_mccutcheon_complaint.pdf |archive-date=October 14, 2013 |dead-url=no |df=mdy-all }}
17. ^{{cite web |url=http://www.fec.gov/law/litigation/mccutcheon_ac_desig_judges.pdf |title=DESIGNATION OF JUDGES TO SERVE ON THREE-JUDGE DISTRICT COURT |publisher=Federal Election Commission |date=July 3, 2012 |access-date=November 7, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140212202624/http://www.fec.gov/law/litigation/mccutcheon_ac_desig_judges.pdf |archive-date=February 12, 2014 |dead-url=no |df=mdy-all }}
18. ^1 {{cite web |url=http://www.brennancenter.org/legal-work/mccutcheon-v-fec |title=McCutcheon v. FEC |publisher=Brennan Center for Justice |date=July 25, 2013 |access-date=November 7, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131005104408/http://www.brennancenter.org/legal-work/mccutcheon-v-fec |archive-date=October 5, 2013 |dead-url=no |df=mdy-all }}
19. ^{{cite court |litigants=McCutcheon v. FEC |vol=893 |reporter=F. Supp. 2d |opinion=133 |pinpoint= |court=D.D.C. |date=2012 |url=https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20121016757 |accessdate=2018-11-18 |quote=}}
20. ^{{cite web |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/20/us/politics/supreme-court-to-hear-campaign-finance-case.html |title=Justices Take Case on Overall Limit to Political Donations |author=Adam Liptak |work=New York Times |date=February 19, 2013 |access-date=February 27, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170129081023/http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/20/us/politics/supreme-court-to-hear-campaign-finance-case.html |archive-date=January 29, 2017 |dead-url=no |df=mdy-all }}
21. ^{{cite web |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/10/08/supreme-court-takes-up-the-sequel-to-citizens-united/ |title=Everything you need to know about McCutcheon vs FEC |author=Sean Sullivan |work=Washington Post |date=October 8, 2013 |access-date=September 4, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150512115357/http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/10/08/supreme-court-takes-up-the-sequel-to-citizens-united/ |archive-date=May 12, 2015 |dead-url=no |df=mdy-all }}
22. ^1 {{cite web |url=http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/McCutcheon_v_Federal_Election_Commission_The_next_Citizens_United.html |title=McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission: The next Citizens United? |author=Alexander Fullman |work=Philadelphia Inquirer |date=October 7, 2013 |access-date=November 7, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131009205144/http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/McCutcheon_v_Federal_Election_Commission_The_next_Citizens_United.html |archive-date=October 9, 2013 |dead-url=no |df=mdy-all }}
23. ^{{cite web | url=http://www.fec.gov/law/cfr/ej_compilation/2015/notice2015-01.pdf | title=Price Index Adjustments for Contribution and Expenditure Limitations and Lobbyist Bundling Disclosure Threshold | work=Federal Register | date=February 3, 2015 | accessdate=June 17, 2016 | author=FEC | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170201143559/http://www.fec.gov/law/cfr/ej_compilation/2015/notice2015-01.pdf | archive-date=February 1, 2017 | dead-url=no | df=mdy-all }}
24. ^{{cite news|author1=Michael Beckel|title=The 'McCutcheon' decision explained — more money to pour into political process|url=http://www.publicintegrity.org/2014/04/22/14611/mccutcheon-decision-explained-more-money-pour-political-process|accessdate=November 19, 2014|work=The Center for Public Integrity|date=April 22, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141118211407/http://www.publicintegrity.org/2014/04/22/14611/mccutcheon-decision-explained-more-money-pour-political-process|archive-date=November 18, 2014|dead-url=no|df=mdy-all}}
25. ^{{cite web | url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-strikes-down-limits-on-federal-campaign-donations/2014/04/02/54e16c30-ba74-11e3-9a05-c739f29ccb08_story.html | title=Supreme Court strikes down limits on federal campaign donations | work=Washington Post | date=April 2, 2014 | accessdate=April 2, 2014 | author=Barnes, Robert | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140402221229/http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-strikes-down-limits-on-federal-campaign-donations/2014/04/02/54e16c30-ba74-11e3-9a05-c739f29ccb08_story.html | archive-date=April 2, 2014 | dead-url=no | df=mdy-all }}
26. ^{{Cite web |url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-536_e1pf.pdf |title=ruling |access-date=June 27, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170702021620/https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-536_e1pf.pdf |archive-date=July 2, 2017 |dead-url=no |df=mdy-all }}
27. ^{{cite web |publisher=Public Interest Research Group |url=http://www.uspirg.org/blogs/blog/usp/people-strike-back |title=The People Strike Back |author=Blair Bowie |accessdate=November 8, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131030162449/http://www.uspirg.org/blogs/blog/usp/people-strike-back |archive-date=October 30, 2013 |dead-url=no |df=mdy-all }}
28. ^{{cite web |publisher=Grist.org |url=http://grist.org/politics/greens-and-voting-rights-activists-get-big-money-out-of-politics/ |title=Greens and voting rights activists: Get big money out of politics |author=Brentin Mock |accessdate=November 8, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131023194703/http://grist.org/politics/greens-and-voting-rights-activists-get-big-money-out-of-politics/ |archive-date=October 23, 2013 |dead-url=no |df=mdy-all }}
29. ^{{cite web|work=The Nation|url=http://www.thenation.com/blog/179131/supreme-courts-ideology-more-money-less-voting|title =The Supreme Court's Ideology: More Money, Less Voting |author=Ari Berman|accessdate=April 3, 2014}}
30. ^1 {{cite web|last=Samuelson|first=Robert|title=In politics, money is speech|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/robert-j-samuelson-in-politics-money-is-speech/2014/04/04/075df4ec-bc18-11e3-9a05-c739f29ccb08_story.html|publisher=The Washington Post|accessdate=8 April 2014|date=6 April 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140408043804/http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/robert-j-samuelson-in-politics-money-is-speech/2014/04/04/075df4ec-bc18-11e3-9a05-c739f29ccb08_story.html|archive-date=April 8, 2014|dead-url=no|df=mdy-all}}
31. ^{{cite web |publisher=Center for Competitive Politics |url=http://www.campaignfreedom.org/2014/04/02/center-heralds-win-in-mccutcheon-v-federal-election-commission/ |title=Center Heralds Win in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission |accessdate=May 1, 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140502002718/http://www.campaignfreedom.org/2014/04/02/center-heralds-win-in-mccutcheon-v-federal-election-commission/ |archive-date=May 2, 2014 |dead-url=no |df=mdy-all }}
32. ^{{cite web|work=The New Yorker|url=http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2014/04/the-john-roberts-project-beyond-mccutcheon.html?currentPage=all|title=The John Roberts Project|author=Jeffrey Toobin|accessdate=April 3, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140407074707/http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2014/04/the-john-roberts-project-beyond-mccutcheon.html?currentPage=all|archive-date=April 7, 2014|dead-url=no|df=mdy-all}}

External links

  • {{caselaw source

| case = McCutcheon v. FEC, {{Ussc|572|185|2014|el=no}}
| courtlistener =https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2659301/mccutcheon-v-federal-election-commn/
| justia =https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/572/12-536/
| oyez =https://www.oyez.org/cases/2013/12-536
| other_source1 = Supreme Court (slip opinion)
| other_url1 =https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-536_e1pf.pdf{{US1stAmendment|speech|state=expanded}}{{DEFAULTSORT:McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission}}

7 : Federal Election Commission litigation|Campaign finance in the United States|United States elections case law|United States Free Speech Clause case law|United States Supreme Court cases of the Roberts Court|United States Supreme Court cases|2014 in United States case law
随便看

　

开放百科全书收录14589846条英语、德语、日语等多语种百科知识，基本涵盖了大多数领域的百科知识，是一部内容自由、开放的电子版国际百科全书。

　

Copyright © 2023 OENC.NET All Rights Reserved
京ICP备2021023879号 更新时间：2024/11/11 5:03:22