This HTML5 document contains 379 embedded RDF statements represented using HTML+Microdata notation.

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

Namespace Prefixes

PrefixIRI
dbthttp://dbpedia.org/resource/Template:
n39http://www.scotuswiki.com/
wikipedia-enhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
dbrhttp://dbpedia.org/resource/
n8http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2013/
n31https://web.archive.org/web/20170702021217/https:/www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/
n14https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/
n23https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/558/08-205/
n26http://dbpedia.org/property/concurrence/
dbpedia-hehttp://he.dbpedia.org/resource/
n35https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/
dbpedia-frhttp://fr.dbpedia.org/resource/
n4http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:FilePath/
dcthttp://purl.org/dc/terms/
rdfshttp://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#
rdfhttp://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#
n22http://www.rochester.edu/president/memos/2010/
n12http://dbpedia.org/resource/File:
dbphttp://dbpedia.org/property/
n29https://scholar.google.com/
xsdhhttp://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#
n43https://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2008/2008_08_205/opinion/
dbohttp://dbpedia.org/ontology/
n36http://dbpedia.org/resource/Hillary:
dbpedia-jahttp://ja.dbpedia.org/resource/
umbel-rchttp://umbel.org/umbel/rc/
dbpedia-ishttp://is.dbpedia.org/resource/
dbchttp://dbpedia.org/resource/Category:
n28http://dbpedia.org/resource/9/
dbpedia-dehttp://de.dbpedia.org/resource/
n15https://ssrn.com/
n38https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/
yagohttp://dbpedia.org/class/yago/
wikidatahttp://www.wikidata.org/entity/
dbpedia-nlhttp://nl.dbpedia.org/resource/
n25http://dbpedia.org/resource/Fahrenheit_9/
n13http://dbpedia.org/property/joinconcurrence/
n27https://global.dbpedia.org/id/
yago-reshttp://yago-knowledge.org/resource/
n24https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/
n48http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/1998/
n16https://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2008/2008_08_205/reargument/
n46https://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/05/21/
n18http://sw.cyc.com/concept/
dbpedia-ithttp://it.dbpedia.org/resource/
n32http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/citizens-united-v-federal-election-commission/
provhttp://www.w3.org/ns/prov#
foafhttp://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/
n7https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/
dbpedia-zhhttp://zh.dbpedia.org/resource/
n44https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1741/citizens-united-v-federal-election-comn/
n41https://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2008/2008_08_205/argument/
dbpedia-eshttp://es.dbpedia.org/resource/
freebasehttp://rdf.freebase.com/ns/
owlhttp://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#

Statements

Subject Item
dbr:Citizens_United_v._FEC
rdf:type
yago:YagoPermanentlyLocatedEntity yago:Activity100407535 owl:Thing yago:PsychologicalFeature100023100 yago:Act100030358 yago:Event100029378 wikidata:Q2334719 yago:Case107308889 dbo:LegalCase dbo:UnitOfWork dbo:Case yago:Attempt100786195 dbo:SupremeCourtOfTheUnitedStatesCase yago:Abstraction100002137 umbel-rc:Event yago:WikicatUnitedStatesSupremeCourtCasesOfTheRobertsCourt yago:WikicatUnitedStatesSupremeCourtCases yago:Happening107283608 yago:WikicatTrialsInTheUnitedStates yago:Test100791078
rdfs:label
シチズンズ・ユナイテッド対FEC裁判 Cittadini Uniti contro la Commissione elettorale federale Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission 联合公民诉联邦选举委员会案 Caso Ciudadanos Unidos contra la Comisión de Elecciones Federales Citizens United v. FEC Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
rdfs:comment
L'arrêt Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, rendu par la Cour suprême des États-Unis le 21 janvier 2010, est un arrêt historique concernant la réglementation des dépenses de campagne électorale par les organisations. シチズンズ・ユナイテッド対FEC裁判(シチズンズユナイテッド たい エフイーシー さいばん)は、アメリカ合衆国における選挙の際のコマーシャルの放映について、2010年にアメリカ合衆国最高裁判所が行った裁判である。この裁判では、組合、営利団体、非営利団体に対して、本選挙の60日以内及び予備選挙の30日以内にテレビコマーシャルを放映することを禁止しているBipartisan Campaign Reform Actの一部規定は、アメリカ合衆国憲法修正第1条の表現の自由に反しており、違憲であるという判断を下した。 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States regarding campaign finance laws and free speech under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It was argued in 2009 and decided in 2010. The court held 5-4 that the free speech clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for political campaigns by corporations, including nonprofit corporations, labor unions, and other associations. Il caso Cittadini Uniti contro la Commissione elettorale federale, emesso dalla Corte Suprema degli Stati Uniti il 21 gennaio 2010, è stata una sentenza storica che ha permesso la partecipazione di aziende a campagne elettorali. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission war ein 2009/2010 am Obersten Gerichtshof der Vereinigten Staaten verhandelter Fall zur Frage, ob gesetzliche Offenlegungspflichten und Finanzierungsbeschränkungen für die auf die Beeinflussung von Wahlen gerichteten Tätigkeit von Firmen (auch Non-Profit-Organisationen) und Gewerkschaften verfassungskonform sind. 联合公民诉联邦选举专员会案(Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 08-205 (2010))是由美国联邦最高法院判决的一场具有重要意义的诉讼案。最高法院于2010年1月21日做出判决,认定(又称麦凯恩-费恩古尔德法案,由共和党议员约翰·麦凯恩与民主党议员拉斯·芬格爾德于2002年提出)违反宪法第一修正案(……联邦不得通过法律限制言论自由)。 该法案的203条规定:公司和工会不得在大选60天前和初选30天前在广播、有线电视和卫星等“选举通讯渠道”中攻击或支持某一候选人。这一案件自上诉而来。在2008年的判决中,当时地区法院站在了联邦选举委员会(FEC)一边,认定原本计划在2008年美国总统选举前夕播放的批评总统候选人的电影《希拉里:一部电影》(Hillary: The Movie)违法。 最高法院的判决则认为,两党选举改革法案中关于竞选最后阶段限制各种企业或组织以赢利或非赢利的目的资助候选人的相关条款违宪,同时推翻了之前最高法院伦奎斯特法庭的两个判例,分别是1990年的(Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce)以及2002年的(McConnell v. FEC)。判决认定通过资助来播放批评其他候选人的竞选广告是合法的,但仍旧限制企业或组织对于候选人的直接金钱资助。 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is een arrest van het Hooggerechtshof van de Verenigde Staten d.d. 21 januari 2010. Het stelt dat de overheid verkiezingspropaganda door "onafhankelijke" organisaties en bedrijven niet kan verbieden. Een wet die een sperperiode instelde, werd in strijd bevonden met de grondwettelijke vrijheid van meningsuiting. El caso Ciudadanos Unidos contra Comisión de Elecciones Federales, dictada por la Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos el 21 de enero de 2010,​ fue una sentencia histórica que permitió la participación de empresas en campañas políticas electorales.
foaf:name
Citizens United, Appellant v. Federal Election Commission
foaf:depiction
n4:Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission_Poll_1.png n4:Anthony_Kennedy_official_SCOTUS_portrait_crop.jpg n4:John_Paul_Stevens,_SCOTUS_photo_portrait.jpg
dct:subject
dbc:Federal_Election_Commission_litigation dbc:Campaign_finance_in_the_United_States dbc:Corporate_personhood dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_decisions_that_overrule_a_prior_Supreme_Court_decision dbc:Judicial_activism dbc:United_States_elections_case_law dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases_of_the_Roberts_Court dbc:2010_in_United_States_case_law dbc:United_States_Free_Speech_Clause_case_law
dbo:wikiPageID
22097436
dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
1122484266
dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
dbr:Clarence_Thomas dbr:List_of_landmark_court_decisions_in_the_United_States dbr:End_Citizens_United dbr:Oral_argument_in_the_United_States dbr:National_Republican_Congressional_Committee dbc:Federal_Election_Commission_litigation dbr:John_Roberts dbr:Mitch_McConnell dbr:Sheldon_Adelson dbr:Cass_Sunstein dbr:Laurence_H._Tribe dbr:San_Antonio_Express-News dbr:Corporatocracy n12:Anthony_Kennedy_official_SCOTUS_portrait_crop.jpg dbr:United_States_District_Court_for_the_District_of_Columbia dbr:501c4 dbr:James_Bopp dbr:Elena_Kagan dbr:The_New_York_Times dbr:Bowman_v_United_Kingdom dbr:Justice_Scalia dbr:Republican_Party_(United_States) n12:John_Paul_Stevens,_SCOTUS_photo_portrait.jpg dbr:American_Civil_Liberties_Union dbr:Federal_Election_Campaign_Act dbr:Justice_Stevens dbr:Super_PACs dbr:Ben_&_Jerry's dbr:Theodore_Olson dbr:Facial_challenge dbr:Chicago_Tribune dbr:Solicitor_General_of_the_United_States dbr:Campaign_finance_in_the_United_States dbr:George_W._Bush dbr:Minnesota_House_of_Representatives dbr:Leonard_Boswell dbc:Campaign_finance_in_the_United_States dbr:Special_interests dbr:McConnell_v._Federal_Election_Commission dbr:Crossroads_Grassroots_Policy_Strategies dbr:Republican_National_Committee dbr:Independent_expenditure n25:11 dbr:Russ_Feingold dbr:Freedom_of_association dbr:Yale_Law_School dbr:Federal_Election_Commission dbr:Democracy_21 dbr:Political_Action_Committee dbr:Political_Action_Committees dbr:McComish_v._Bennett dbr:Loyola_Law_School dbr:Pat_Choate n28:11 dbr:D.D.C. dbr:N.Y.U._School_of_Law dbc:Corporate_personhood dbr:501(c)(4) dbr:Judicial_restraint dbr:Labor_Management_Relations_Act_of_1947 dbr:Cato_Institute dbr:David_Bossie dbr:David_Souter dbr:Federal_Election_Commission_v._Wisconsin_Right_to_Life,_Inc. dbr:Stanford_Law_School dbr:Institute_for_Justice dbr:Justice_Sotomayor dbr:Taft–Hartley_Act dbr:John_Kerry n12:Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission_Poll_1.png dbr:2009_term_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_decisions_that_overrule_a_prior_Supreme_Court_decision dbr:Alan_Grayson dbr:Gallup_Poll dbr:European_Convention_on_Human_Rights dbr:Erwin_Chemerinsky dbr:Columbia_University dbr:Bush_v._Gore dbr:Commission_on_Federal_Ethics_Law_Reform dbc:United_States_elections_case_law dbr:Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2008 dbc:Judicial_activism dbr:Hillary_Clinton dbr:Boards_of_directors dbr:National_Association_for_the_Advancement_of_Colored_People_v._Alabama dbr:Western_Tradition_Partnership,_Inc._v._Attorney_General_of_Montana dbr:Corporate_personhood dbr:Freedom_of_speech dbr:Roberts_Court dbr:Reform_Party_of_the_United_States_of_America dbr:Ben_Cohen_(businessman) dbr:Michael_Waldman dbr:McCutcheon_v._FEC dbr:American_Association_of_Retired_Persons dbr:Dick_Durbin dbr:Jamie_Raskin dbr:Institute_for_Free_Speech dbr:McConnell_v._FEC dbr:Amazon_Kindle dbr:University_of_Miami dbr:Newt_Gingrich dbr:Donna_Edwards dbr:John_McCain dbr:Rick_Santorum dbr:Exxon n36:_The_Movie dbr:Chuck_Schumer dbr:Constitution_of_the_United_States dbr:Seth_Waxman dbr:Appearance_of_corruption dbr:Thomas_B._Edsall dbr:Richard_L._Hasen dbr:L._Ed._2d dbr:Karl_Rove dbr:Jeffrey_Toobin dbr:Ed_Rollins dbr:Election_law dbr:En_banc dbr:U.S._LEXIS dbr:Barack_Obama dbr:Free_speech dbr:Buckley_v._Valeo dbr:University_of_Alabama_Law_School dbr:Salon_(website) dbr:Electoral_reform_in_the_United_States dbr:Harvard_Law_School dbr:Constitutional_amendment dbr:United_States_Chamber_of_Commerce dbr:Democratic_Party_(United_States)_presidential_primaries,_2008 dbr:Hans_A._von_Spakovsky dbr:National_Republican_Senatorial_Committee dbr:Michael_Moore dbr:Brennan_Center_for_Justice dbr:Harper_v._Canada_(Attorney_General) dbr:Caperton_v._A.T._Massey_Coal_Co. dbr:2012_United_States_presidential_election dbr:Justice_Alito dbr:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States dbr:Bipartisan_Campaign_Reform_Act dbr:Marquette_Law_Review dbr:Sonia_Sotomayor dbr:Bradley_A._Smith dbr:Bernie_Sanders dbr:Adam_Schiff dbr:Justice_Ginsburg dbr:Anthony_Kennedy dbr:Democratic_Party_(United_States) dbr:Ralph_Nader dbr:Animal_Defenders_International_v_United_Kingdom dbr:Tillman_Act dbr:Dred_Scott_v._Sandford dbr:Nonprofit_organization dbr:Docudrama dbr:University_of_Delaware dbr:United_States_representative dbr:Liberalism_in_the_United_States dbr:Brooklyn_Law_School dbr:Jimmy_Carter dbr:Eugene_Volokh dbr:Organization_for_Security_and_Co-operation_in_Europe dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases_of_the_Roberts_Court dbr:F._Supp._2d dbr:Stare_decisis dbr:Stamp_Stampede dbr:Minnesota dbr:DirecTV dbr:First_National_Bank_of_Boston_v._Bellotti dbr:Issue_advocacy_ads dbr:Bank_of_the_United_States_v._Deveaux dbr:CounterPunch dbr:Time_(magazine) dbr:Olympia_Snowe dbr:Sandra_Day_O'Connor dbr:Foster_Friess dbr:Joel_Seligman dbr:Chris_Van_Hollen dbr:Citizens_United_(organization) dbr:Dissenting_opinion dbr:DISCLOSE_Act dbr:2010_State_of_the_Union_Address dbr:Janez_Lenarčič dbr:Citizens_United_v._FEC dbr:Strict_scrutiny dbr:1996_United_States_campaign_finance_controversy dbc:2010_in_United_States_case_law dbr:University_of_Chicago dbr:Tillman_Act_of_1907 dbr:Bipartisan_Campaign_Reform_Act_of_2002 dbr:First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution dbr:Holding_(law) dbr:Der_Spiegel dbr:London_School_of_Economics dbr:Certiorari dbr:Montana_Supreme_Court dbr:Floyd_Abrams dbr:The_Christian_Science_Monitor dbr:Thom_Hartmann dbr:Office_for_Democratic_Institutions_and_Human_Rights dbr:FEC_v._Massachusetts_Citizens_for_Life dbr:FEC_v._National_Conservative_PAC dbr:Rich_Whitney dbr:Derivative_suit dbr:Justice_Breyer dbr:FEC_v._Wisconsin_Right_to_Life,_Inc. dbr:Samuel_Alito dbr:Original_understanding dbr:Jonathan_Alter dbr:Chief_Justice_Roberts dbr:National_Review dbr:David_Kairys dbr:Capital_University_Law_School dbr:Concurring_opinion dbr:Fred_Wertheimer dbr:Libertarianism_in_the_United_States dbr:John_Paul_Stevens dbr:US_corporate_law dbr:Austin_v._Michigan_Chamber_of_Commerce dbr:The_New_Yorker dbr:Conservatism_in_the_United_States dbr:National_Rifle_Association dbc:United_States_Free_Speech_Clause_case_law dbr:The_Journal_of_Law_and_Economics dbr:Heritage_Foundation dbr:Amicus_curiae
dbo:wikiPageExternalLink
n7:08-205.ZS.html n8:362.html n7:08-205.ZO.html n14:680077 n15:abstract=2773217 n22:citizens-united.html n23: n31:08-205%5BReargued%5D.pdf n29:scholar_case%3Fcase=6233137937069871624 n32: n35:08-205.pdf n38:638558 n24:08-205.html n39:index.php%3Ftitle=Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission n44: n46:120521fa_fact_toobin%3FcurrentPage=all n48:4.html n43: n16: n41: n15:abstract=1353203 n15:abstract=2012800 n15:abstract=2528587
owl:sameAs
n18:Mx4rufXSRzIWTvuQYmsjpdJEdA n27:AYW1 dbpedia-it:Cittadini_Uniti_contro_la_Commissione_elettorale_federale wikidata:Q1092602 dbpedia-zh:联合公民诉联邦选举委员会案 yago-res:Citizens_United_v._FEC dbpedia-is:Citizens_United_gegn_kosninganefnd_alríkisins dbpedia-he:פסק_דין_סיטיזנס_יונייטד_נגד_ועדת_הבחירות_הפדרלית freebase:m.05p6s71 dbpedia-es:Caso_Ciudadanos_Unidos_contra_la_Comisión_de_Elecciones_Federales dbpedia-nl:Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission dbpedia-ja:シチズンズ・ユナイテッド対FEC裁判 dbpedia-fr:Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission dbpedia-de:Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
dbt:Ussc dbt:Citation_needed dbt:Caselaw_source dbt:Rquote dbt:US1stAmendment dbt:Reflist dbt:Redirect dbt:Short_description dbt:Use_mdy_dates dbt:Blockquote dbt:Main dbt:Infobox_SCOTUS_case dbt:UnitedStatesCode
dbo:thumbnail
n4:Anthony_Kennedy_official_SCOTUS_portrait_crop.jpg?width=300
dbp:docket
8
dbp:joinmajority
Roberts, Scalia, Alito; Thomas ; Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor
dbp:lawsapplied
dbr:First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution dbr:Bipartisan_Campaign_Reform_Act_of_2002
dbp:opinionannouncement
n43:
dbp:oralargument
n41:
dbp:parallelcitations
172800.0
dbp:prior
172800.0
dbp:uspage
310
dbp:usvol
558
dbp:arguedate
0001-03-24
dbp:argueyear
2009
dbp:case
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission,
dbp:courtlistener
n44:
dbp:decidedate
0001-01-21
dbp:decideyear
2010
dbp:findlaw
n24:08-205.html
dbp:fullname
Citizens United, Appellant v. Federal Election Commission
dbp:holding
The provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 restricting unions, corporations, and profitable organizations from independent political spending and prohibiting the broadcasting of political media funded by them within sixty days of general elections or thirty days of primary elections violate the freedom of speech that is protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. United States District Court for the District of Columbia reversed.
dbp:justia
n23:
dbp:litigants
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
dbp:majority
Kennedy
dbp:page
310
dbp:volume
558
dbp:year
2010
dbo:abstract
El caso Ciudadanos Unidos contra Comisión de Elecciones Federales, dictada por la Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos el 21 de enero de 2010,​ fue una sentencia histórica que permitió la participación de empresas en campañas políticas electorales. L'arrêt Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, rendu par la Cour suprême des États-Unis le 21 janvier 2010, est un arrêt historique concernant la réglementation des dépenses de campagne électorale par les organisations. La Cour suprême a statué que la liberté d'expression du premier amendement de la Constitution des États-Unis interdit à l’État de restreindre les dépenses de communication qui préconise expressément l'élection ou la défaite d'un candidat clairement identifié qui n'est pas faite en coopération, en consultation ou en concert avec ou à la demande ou à la suggestion d'un candidat, d'un comité autorisé par le candidat ou d'un parti politique (independent expenditures), pour les sociétés sans but lucratif, les sociétés à but lucratif, les syndicats et autres associations. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States regarding campaign finance laws and free speech under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It was argued in 2009 and decided in 2010. The court held 5-4 that the free speech clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for political campaigns by corporations, including nonprofit corporations, labor unions, and other associations. The case began after Citizens United, a conservative non-profit organization, sought to air and advertise a film critical of then Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton shortly before the 2008 Democratic primary elections. Broadcasting the film would have been a violation of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which prohibited any corporation, non-profit organization or labor union from making an "electioneering communication" within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of an election, or making any expenditure advocating the election or defeat of a candidate at any time. Citizens United challenged the constitutionality of this law, and its case reached the Supreme Court. In a majority opinion joined by four other justices, Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy held that the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act's prohibition of all independent expenditures by corporations and unions violated the First Amendment's protection of free speech. The court overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990), which had allowed a prohibition on election spending by incorporated entities, as well as a portion of McConnell v. FEC (2003) that had upheld restricted corporate spending on "electioneering communications." The ruling effectively freed corporations (including incorporated non-profit organizations) to spend money on electioneering communications and to directly advocate for the election or defeat of candidates. In a dissenting opinion, Associate Justice John Paul Stevens argued that the court's ruling represented "a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self government." The decision remains highly controversial, generating much public discussion and receiving strong support and opposition from various groups. Senator Mitch McConnell commended the decision, arguing that it represented "an important step in the direction of restoring the First Amendment rights". By contrast, former President Barack Obama stated that the decision "gives the special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington". The ruling represented a turning point on campaign finance, allowing unlimited election spending by corporations and labor unions, and setting the stage for Speechnow.org v. FEC, which authorized the creation of "Independent Expenditure Committees", more commonly known as Super PACs, and for later rulings by the Roberts Court, including McCutcheon v. FEC (2014), striking down other campaign finance restrictions. While the long-term legacy of this case remains to be seen, early studies by political scientists have concluded that Citizens United worked in favor of the electoral success of Republican candidates. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is een arrest van het Hooggerechtshof van de Verenigde Staten d.d. 21 januari 2010. Het stelt dat de overheid verkiezingspropaganda door "onafhankelijke" organisaties en bedrijven niet kan verbieden. Een wet die een sperperiode instelde, werd in strijd bevonden met de grondwettelijke vrijheid van meningsuiting. Het arrest past binnen eerdere jurisprudentie over het "kopen" van verkiezingen. In Buckley v. Valeo (1976) had het hof reeds geoordeeld dat personen onbeperkt geld mochten geven aan verkiezingskandidaten. Kort daarna had First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti dit ook toegelaten voor bedrijven (1978), die voortaan behandeld werden als natuurlijke personen met grondrechten. Citizens United ging verder op deze weg en elimineerde een nog resterende beperking voor bedrijven en verenigingen. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission war ein 2009/2010 am Obersten Gerichtshof der Vereinigten Staaten verhandelter Fall zur Frage, ob gesetzliche Offenlegungspflichten und Finanzierungsbeschränkungen für die auf die Beeinflussung von Wahlen gerichteten Tätigkeit von Firmen (auch Non-Profit-Organisationen) und Gewerkschaften verfassungskonform sind. Il caso Cittadini Uniti contro la Commissione elettorale federale, emesso dalla Corte Suprema degli Stati Uniti il 21 gennaio 2010, è stata una sentenza storica che ha permesso la partecipazione di aziende a campagne elettorali. シチズンズ・ユナイテッド対FEC裁判(シチズンズユナイテッド たい エフイーシー さいばん)は、アメリカ合衆国における選挙の際のコマーシャルの放映について、2010年にアメリカ合衆国最高裁判所が行った裁判である。この裁判では、組合、営利団体、非営利団体に対して、本選挙の60日以内及び予備選挙の30日以内にテレビコマーシャルを放映することを禁止しているBipartisan Campaign Reform Actの一部規定は、アメリカ合衆国憲法修正第1条の表現の自由に反しており、違憲であるという判断を下した。 联合公民诉联邦选举专员会案(Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 08-205 (2010))是由美国联邦最高法院判决的一场具有重要意义的诉讼案。最高法院于2010年1月21日做出判决,认定(又称麦凯恩-费恩古尔德法案,由共和党议员约翰·麦凯恩与民主党议员拉斯·芬格爾德于2002年提出)违反宪法第一修正案(……联邦不得通过法律限制言论自由)。 该法案的203条规定:公司和工会不得在大选60天前和初选30天前在广播、有线电视和卫星等“选举通讯渠道”中攻击或支持某一候选人。这一案件自上诉而来。在2008年的判决中,当时地区法院站在了联邦选举委员会(FEC)一边,认定原本计划在2008年美国总统选举前夕播放的批评总统候选人的电影《希拉里:一部电影》(Hillary: The Movie)违法。 最高法院的判决则认为,两党选举改革法案中关于竞选最后阶段限制各种企业或组织以赢利或非赢利的目的资助候选人的相关条款违宪,同时推翻了之前最高法院伦奎斯特法庭的两个判例,分别是1990年的(Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce)以及2002年的(McConnell v. FEC)。判决认定通过资助来播放批评其他候选人的竞选广告是合法的,但仍旧限制企业或组织对于候选人的直接金钱资助。 支持者认为这符合言论自由的原则,而反对者则认为这一判决将会造成大量金钱介入竞选活动,使民主政治腐化。著名法学家将其称为“近年来关于第一修正案最为重要的案件”。
dbp:concurrence
Scalia Roberts
n26:dissent
Stevens Thomas
dbp:cornell
n7:08-205.ZO.html
dbp:googlescholar
n29:scholar_case%3Fcase=6233137937069871624
dbp:joinconcurrence
Alito; Thomas Alito
n13:dissent
Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor
dbp:oralreargument
n16:
dbp:overturnedPreviousCase
Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce McConnell v. FEC
dbp:rearguedate
0001-09-09
dbp:reargueyear
2009
prov:wasDerivedFrom
wikipedia-en:Citizens_United_v._FEC?oldid=1122484266&ns=0
dbo:wikiPageLength
141223
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
wikipedia-en:Citizens_United_v._FEC