This HTML5 document contains 241 embedded RDF statements represented using HTML+Microdata notation.

The embedded RDF content will be recognized by any processor of HTML5 Microdata.

Subject Item

n2:_Valeo

rdf:type

yago:YagoPermanentlyLocatedEntity yago:WikicatUnitedStatesSupremeCourtCases dbo:SupremeCourtOfTheUnitedStatesCase dbo:UnitOfWork dbo:Case dbo:LegalCase owl:Thing umbel-rc:Event yago:Event100029378 yago:Abstraction100002137 yago:PsychologicalFeature100023100 wd:Q2334719 yago:Case107308889 yago:Happening107283608

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, 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

owl:sameAs

n2:_Valeo n38:2iGYa wd:Q2927471 n44:_Valeo n48:_Valeo n59:028pbj

foaf:name

James L. Buckley, et al. v. Francis R. Valeo, Secretary of the United States Senate, et al.

foaf:topic

dbr:Bowman_v_United_Kingdom dbr:National_Voting_Rights_Institute n9:_Ohio_Elections_Commission dbr:Animal_Defenders_International_v_United_Kingdom dbr:Eugene_McCarthy dbr:Appointments_Clause dbr:Elections_in_the_United_States n13:_Bellotti n19:_FEC dbr:Samuel_Alito_Supreme_Court_nomination dbr:List_of_landmark_court_decisions_in_the_United_States dbr:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States dbr:527_organization dbr:5-4 dbr:Shadow_campaigns_in_the_United_States n24: dbr:January_1976 dbr:Campaign_finance_reform_amendment dbr:Campaign_finance_reform_in_the_United_States n26:_Shrink_Missouri_Government_PAC dbr:Campaign_finance_in_the_United_States dbr:List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases_by_the_Burger_Court n28:_valleo n29:_1 n32:_Valeo dbr:List_of_court_cases_involving_the_American_Civil_Liberties_Union n34:_Finkelstein n35:_Buckley n36:_organization dbr:Corporate_personhood dbr:Publicly_funded_elections dbr:Buckley_vs_Valeo dbr:Federal_Election_Campaign_Act dbr:Federal_Election_Commission dbr:Dark_money n43:_Burling dbr:Issue_advocacy_ads n2:_valeo dbr:Fred_Wertheimer dbr:Cenk_Uygur dbr:Pete_Buttigieg n11:_Valeo dbr:Buckley_v_Valeo dbr:Buckley_v_valeo n2:_valleo dbr:Per_curiam_decision n39:_FEC dbr:American_Anti-Corruption_Act dbr:Neil_Gorsuch n49:_FEC dbr:Unfair_election dbr:First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution dbr:Wolf-PAC n51:this n52:_National_Conservative_PAC dbr:Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States dbr:Archibald_Cox dbr:Eight_magic_words n54:_City_of_Berkeley n55:_FEC dbr:Bipartisan_Legal_Advisory_Group dbr:Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution n57:_Crawford dbr:List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases_involving_the_First_Amendment dbr:Political_finance dbr:Appearance_of_corruption n63:_FEC dbr:Presidency_of_Gerald_Ford n65: dbr:Independent_expenditure n68:_Sorrell

foaf:depiction

n64:jpg

wdrs:describedby

n23:Freedom_of_speech n30:LexisNexis n45: n23:LexisNexis n66:_Edition

dbp:loc

n37:pdf

dbp:courtlistener

n56:

dct:subject

dbc:Federal_Election_Commission_litigation dbc:American_Civil_Liberties_Union_litigation dbc:United_States_Free_Speech_Clause_case_law dbc:United_States_elections_case_law dbc:United_States_equal_protection_case_law dbc:Appointments_Clause_case_law dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases_of_the_Burger_Court dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases dbc:1976_in_United_States_case_law dbc:United_States_separation_of_powers_case_law dbc:United_States_administrative_case_law

dbo:wikiPageID

439493

dbo:wikiPageRevisionID

1093911331

dbo:wikiPageWikiLink

n6:_volume_424 dbr:Ex_officio n8:_Sullivan dbr:United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_District_of_Columbia_Circuit dbr:Peace_and_Freedom_Party dbr:Federal_Election_Campaign_Act dbr:Federal_government_of_the_United_States dbr:Federal_Election_Commission n11:_Valeo dbc:American_Civil_Liberties_Union_litigation dbr:Freedom_of_speech dbr:United_States_Congress n20:_Supreme_Court dbr:Federal_Election_Campaign_Act_of_1971 n21: dbr:United_States_Senate dbr:US_Supreme_Court dbr:American_Conservative_Union dbr:1968_United_States_presidential_election n27: dbr:Secretary_of_the_United_States_Senate dbr:Gerald_Ford dbr:United_States_District_Court_for_the_District_of_Columbia n13:_Bellotti dbc:United_States_elections_case_law dbr:Thurgood_Marshall dbr:Due_process dbr:Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution dbc:United_States_Free_Speech_Clause_case_law dbr:Tillman_Act_of_1907 dbr:Constitution_of_the_United_States dbr:Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution dbr:Separation_of_powers n39:_Federal_Election_Commission n40:jpg dbr:Appearance_of_corruption n41: n35:_Buckley dbr:Lawsuit dbr:Fundraising dbr:LexisNexis dbr:Bowman_v_United_Kingdom dbr:Per_curiam_decision dbr:Labor_Management_Relations_Act_of_1947 dbr:Eugene_McCarthy dbr:Corruption dbr:Per_curiam_opinion dbr:Byron_White dbr:United_States_Code dbr:New_York_Civil_Liberties_Union dbr:First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution dbc:United_States_equal_protection_case_law n53:_Edition dbc:Appointments_Clause_case_law dbr:Conservative_Party_of_New_York_State dbr:Campaign_finance_in_the_United_States dbc:1976_in_United_States_case_law dbr:Plaintiff dbr:White_J dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases_of_the_Burger_Court dbr:Declaratory_judgment dbc:United_States_separation_of_powers_case_law dbr:List_of_landmark_court_decisions_in_the_United_States n63:_Federal_Election_Commission dbc:Federal_Election_Commission_litigation dbc:United_States_administrative_case_law dbr:Presidential_election dbr:Injunction dbr:First_Amendment

dbo:wikiPageExternalLink

n7:11397892430187334248 n47:1 n37:pdf n25:html n50:1 n56: n58: n60:75-436 n67:n213 n69:freespeechontria00park

foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf

n32:_Valeo

dbp:googlescholar

n7:11397892430187334248

dbp:subsequent

As amended.

prov:wasDerivedFrom

n62:0

dbo:abstract

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, 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.

dbo:thumbnail

n16:300

dbp:fullname

James L. Buckley, et al. v. Francis R. Valeo, Secretary of the United States Senate, et al.

dbp:openjurist

n50:1

n31:dissent

Burger White Rehnquist Blackmun Marshall

dbp:cornell

n47:1

dbp:arguedate

--11-10

dbp:argueyear

1975

dbp:case

Buckley v. Valeo,

dbp:decidedate

--01-29

dbp:decideyear

1976

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.

dbp:joinmajority

Brennan, Stewart, Powell; Marshall ; Blackmun ; Rehnquist ; Burger ; White .

dbp:justia

n58:

dbp:lawsapplied

dbr:First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution dbr:Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution

dbp:litigants

Buckley v. Valeo

dbp:majority

Per curiam

dbp:otherSource

World Legal Information Institute

dbp:otherUrl

n25:html

dbp:oyez

n60:75-436

dbp:parallelcitations

172800.0

dbp:uspage

1

dbp:usvol

424

dbp:notparticipating

Stevens

dbo:wikiPageLength

29017

dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate

dbt:Caselaw_source dbt:US_Appointments_Clause dbt:Ussc dbt:Cite_journal dbt:Infobox_SCOTUS_case dbt:Cite_book dbt:Reflist dbt:US1stAmendment dbt:Short_description