Warning

Info

Warning

Info

Warning

Info

LSDefine

Simple English definitions for legal terms

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010)

Read a random definition: reasonable royalty

A quick definition of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010):

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is a court case that says the government can't stop groups like corporations or unions from spending money on political campaigns. Before this case, a law called the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act said that corporations and unions couldn't use their money to support or oppose a candidate for office. But the Supreme Court said that this law went against the First Amendment, which protects free speech. Some people think this decision lets big companies have too much influence in elections.

A more thorough explanation:

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is a Supreme Court case from 2010 that ruled that the First Amendment's free speech clause prohibits the government from limiting independent expenditures on political campaigns by groups such as corporations or labor unions. This means that corporations and unions can spend unlimited amounts of money on political campaigns as long as they do not coordinate with candidates or political parties.

For example, in 2012, the super PAC supporting Mitt Romney's presidential campaign, Restore Our Future, spent over $142 million on ads and other campaign activities. This was made possible by the Citizens United ruling.

The case was controversial because some people believe that allowing corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts of money on political campaigns gives them too much influence over the political process. Others argue that limiting their spending would violate their First Amendment rights to free speech.

citizen's arrest | civil

Warning

Info

General

General chat about the legal profession.
main_chatroom
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
BookwormBroker
16:10
same
RoaldDahl
16:10
@HopefullyInLawSchool: what if i already got rejected. does it mean anything
HopefullyInLawSchool
16:12
@RoaldDahl: Likely not however it could mean nothing
RoaldDahl
16:15
So if it means nothing does that mean something?
HopefullyInLawSchool
16:17
Possibly
RoaldDahl
16:26
Cool
RoaldDahl
16:26
thank you!!!! i hope it means something
pinkandblue
16:31
fart
IrishDinosaur
16:36
Mich R gang lesgooo
Did anyone else get that random get to know nova email?
HopefullyInLawSchool
17:21
Ya it was sent to all YM applicants
starfishies
17:37
Anyone get the NDLS email inviting you to apply for something even though they haven’t made a decision on your app yet
17:38
Better yet I got the email and I was rejected last month
starfishies
17:38
Wtf
starfishies
17:39
and the deadline is in like a week what is this
any cardozo movement?
BatmanBeyond
18:01
Sent a LOCI via portal, but I'm wondering if email would have gotten me a swifter response
BatmanBeyond
18:02
This whole hold/wait-list/reserve system is a headache
loci already?
BatmanBeyond
18:09
If the odds are like 1-2% I don't think it matters much by the numbers
12:11
I got the same NDLS email
OrangeThing
12:18
I think the user profiles are broken
19:29
Any word out of Notre Dame?
19:29
Only the invitation to apply for LSE
19:29
Anyone received a decision from NDLS?
19:50
when did u guys apply that just heard from umich? they havent even glanced at my app yet
0:30
how am i supposed to spy on people when profile links are broken?
Right. Broken links smh
I've been UR since first/second week of Jan, no updates otherwise, is that a bad sign? At or above median LSAT and above 75th gpa.
The profile links are not working for me. anybody else?
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.