Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
Buckley v Valeo
Transcript of Buckley v Valeo
"Buckley v. Valeo (1976)." Significant United States Supreme Court Cases. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Jan. 2013.
"BUCKLEY v. VALEO." Federal Election Commission. FEC, n.d. Web. 09 Jan. 2013.
BUCKLEY v. VALEO. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 09 January 2013. <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1975/1975_75_436>.
"Campaign Finance Reform Buckley v. Valeo." Institute for Local SelfReliance. ILSR, 1 Dec. 2008. Web. 09 Jan. 2013.
"The Effect of Buckley v. Valeo (1976)." The Effect of Buckley v. Valeo (1976). N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Jan. 2013.
"United States, Buckley v. Valeo." United States, Buckley v. Valeo. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Jan. 2013. Buckley v. Valeo Filed on January 2, 1975 by Senator James L. Buckley of New York and others against Francis R. Valeo, Secretary of the Senate and Ex officio member of the Federal Election Commission(FEC)
Buckley charged that the provisions in the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) were unconstitutional and violated the freedom of expression and due process clause. It was ruled that the spending of one's own money is a form of Constitutionally protected freedom of speech and when compared to receiving money, poses less of a chance of corruption The Court ruled that federal limits on campaign contributions by individuals and others are to be upheld, but federal limits on the spending of one’s own money is unconstitutional o Majority - Powell, Brennan, Stewart
o Dissenter(s) - Burger
o Concurring - White, Marshall, Blackmun, Rehnquist
o Did not participate - Stevens Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 Enacted by Congress on February 7, 1972 it placed restrictions on campaign expenditure, donations to campaigns, and required the disclosure of all campaign finances in the attempt to subdue corruption in campaigning after the Watergate Scandal. William J. Brennan, Jr. ·
Byron White ·
Harry Blackmun ·
Lewis F. Powell, Jr.
William Rehnquist ·
John P. Stevens Warren Burger Associate Justices: Dissenting Opinion: Individual contributions to campaigns should also be protected speech acts under the First Amendment. - Warren Burger Concurring Opinion: All parts of the law should have been upheld - Byron White