FEC v. National Conservative PAC, 470 U.S. 480 (1985), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States striking down expenditure prohibitions of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA), which regulates the fundraising and spending in political campaigns. The FECA is the primary law that places regulations on campaign financing by limiting the amount that may be contributed. The Act established that no independent political action committee may contribute more than $1,000 to any given presidential candidate in support of a campaign.
| Attributes | Values |
|---|
| rdf:type
| |
| rdfs:label
| - FEC v. National Conservative PAC (en)
|
| rdfs:comment
| - FEC v. National Conservative PAC, 470 U.S. 480 (1985), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States striking down expenditure prohibitions of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA), which regulates the fundraising and spending in political campaigns. The FECA is the primary law that places regulations on campaign financing by limiting the amount that may be contributed. The Act established that no independent political action committee may contribute more than $1,000 to any given presidential candidate in support of a campaign. (en)
|
| foaf:name
| - Federal Election Commission v. National Conservative Political Action Committee (en)
|
| foaf:depiction
| |
| dcterms:subject
| |
| Wikipage page ID
| |
| Wikipage revision ID
| |
| Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
| |
| Link from a Wikipage to an external page
| |
| sameAs
| |
| Subsequent
| - Democratic Party of the United States et al. v. National Conservative Political Action Committee et al., No. 83-1122, on appeal from the same court. (en)
|
| dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
| |
| thumbnail
| |
| Dissent
| |
| docket
| |
| JoinDissent
| |
| JoinMajority
| - Burger, Blackmun, O'Connor, Powell, Brennan , Stevens (en)
|
| LawsApplied
| - U.S. Const. amend. I; 50 U.S.C. ยง 33 (en)
|
| OpinionAnnouncement
| |
| OralArgument
| |
| oyez
| |
| ParallelCitations
| |
| Prior
| |
| USPage
| |
| USVol
| |
| ArgueDate
| |
| ArgueYear
| |
| case
| - FEC v. National Conservative PAC, (en)
|
| DecideDate
| |
| DecideYear
| |
| findlaw
| |
| fullname
| - Federal Election Commission v. National Conservative Political Action Committee (en)
|
| Holding
| - Defendants' assertion that there was no violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act was protected by the First Amendment, because the limitation of political contribution under the Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act , was a violation of the First Amendment. (en)
|
| justia
| |
| Litigants
| - FEC v. National Conservative PAC (en)
|
| majority
| |
| loc
| |
| has abstract
| - FEC v. National Conservative PAC, 470 U.S. 480 (1985), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States striking down expenditure prohibitions of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA), which regulates the fundraising and spending in political campaigns. The FECA is the primary law that places regulations on campaign financing by limiting the amount that may be contributed. The Act established that no independent political action committee may contribute more than $1,000 to any given presidential candidate in support of a campaign. A political action committee is an organization that oversees contributions made by members for an electoral candidate. The committee then donates the funding to campaign for or against a candidate. The Democratic Party of the United States and the Federal Election Commission (FEC) accused the National Conservative Political Action Committee (NCPAC) of violating the Federal Election Campaign Act in 1975. The defendants were accused of violating the expenditure limit implemented by the FECA, with the assertion that the independent contribution was in violation of the Act. The NCPAC expressed concern that the FECA violated the First Amendment. In response, The Federal Election Commission claimed that the limitation of expenditures held by the FECA was not a violation of the First Amendment. The FEC said that because it is important to protect the integrity of the Government, as well as to uphold the public's perception of integrity, the limitation was necessary and still complied with the First Amendment. The FEC believed private financing could tarnish the protection of integrity and the public's perception. The Commission also believed the FECA would not hinder individual expression, and that ample room was left to freely express oneself under the Act. Justice William H. Rehnquist concluded in the majority opinion that an attempt to limit spending in support of a Presidential candidate, regardless of financial numerical amount, is still an attempt to regulate the First Amendment and the freedom of association, and is therefore unconstitutional. (en)
|
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)
![[cxml]](/fct/images/cxml_doc.png)
![[csv]](/fct/images/csv_doc.png)
![[text]](/fct/images/ntriples_doc.png)
![[turtle]](/fct/images/n3turtle_doc.png)
![[ld+json]](/fct/images/jsonld_doc.png)
![[rdf+json]](/fct/images/json_doc.png)
![[rdf+xml]](/fct/images/xml_doc.png)
![[atom+xml]](/fct/images/atom_doc.png)
![[html]](/fct/images/html_doc.png)
