TITLE

Court of last resort for altering fund-raising?

AUTHOR(S)
Richey, Warren
PUB. DATE
November 1998
SOURCE
Christian Science Monitor;11/16/98, Vol. 90 Issue 246, p4
SOURCE TYPE
Newspaper
DOC. TYPE
Article
ABSTRACT
Reports that the United States Supreme Court are considering taking up two cases that could facilitate a rewrite of its landmark decision of 1976 that laid the groundwork for the way politicians raise and spend campaign money. The Cincinnati, Ohio ordinance that limits the amount a city council candidate can spend on a campaign; The Arkansas state law that restricts how much donors can contribute; The future of campaign finance if the court decides to take the cases.
ACCESSION #
1277801

 

Related Articles

  • Lowering the Ceiling. Savage, David G. // ABA Journal;Mar2000, Vol. 86 Issue 3, p38 

    Reports that the campaign funding reformers got a boost when the United States Supreme Court endorsed the government's power to limit contributions to candidates. Prediction of reform advocates on the impact of the court ruling; Legal cases concerning campaign fund limits; Views of several...

  • What It Means to the Candidates.  // Time;2/9/1976, Vol. 107 Issue 6, p13 

    The article focuses on the 10-million-dollar spending limit ruled by U.S. Supreme Court for the 1976 election candidates. It states that the spending limit would be most beneficial to presidential candidates Henry Jackson and George Wallace, who have already gathered the most money. It mentions...

  • The buck stops ... WHERE? MOUNTJOY, JOHN J. // State Government News;Mar99, Vol. 42 Issue 2, p29 

    Focuses on the state measures on campaign finance in the United States. Campaign finance figures; Findings of public polls on the issue; Judicial intervention in campaign finance reform.

  • All for naught? No!  // Christian Science Monitor;11/4/97, Vol. 89 Issue 238, p20 

    Discusses the efforts to enact campaign financing reform. Reform bills projected; Opponents of reform; Allegations of Senator Fred Thompson; Governmental Affairs Committee hearings; The possible overhaul of election procedures in the United States.

  • Dems eye crackdown on campaign finance. Crabtree, Susan // Hill;4/23/2010, Vol. 17 Issue 44, p3 

    The article focuses on the campaign finance bill of the U.S. Democratic Party that is designed to counteract the impact of the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision which would be employed to corporate executives, union officials and top donors.

  • Supreme Court to consider major change to campaign contributions.  // Hill;10/7/2013, Vol. 20 Issue 113, p14 

    The article reports on the move of the U.S. Supreme Court to consider a change the campaign-finance rules associated with the court case McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission.

  • The partisanship myth. Rotunda, Ronald D. // Christian Science Monitor;12/15/2000, Vol. 93 Issue 16, p11 

    Discusses the decision of the United States Supreme Court in the trial between Al Gore and George W. Bush concerning Florida ballots in the 2000 U.S. presidential election and the issue of bipartisanship in the Supreme Court.

  • Cash flood drowning out voice of the people. Ellison, Keith // Minnesota Spokesman-Recorder;6/21/2012, Vol. 78 Issue 47, p3 

    The author discusses the exorbitant money spent in the U.S. in the name of elections due a legislative policy of the U.S. Supreme Court.

  • A supreme reason for voting. Curry, George E. // New York Amsterdam News;11/02/2000, Vol. 91 Issue 44, p17 

    Comments on the impact of the November 2000 presidential elections on the United States Supreme Court. Comparison of the legal preferences of candidates Al Gore and George W. Bush; Concerns over the plans by Bush to appoint more right-wing judges.

Share

Read the Article

Courtesy of THE LIBRARY OF VIRGINIA

Sorry, but this item is not currently available from your library.

Try another library?
Sign out of this library

Other Topics