2 U.S.C. § 432
Transferred
[transferred]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 57
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1972–2025 · leading case: Fed. Election Comm'n v. James Toledano, 317 F.3d 939 (9th Cir. 2003).
Fed. Election Comm'n v. James Toledano, 317 F.3d 939 (9th Cir. 2003). “See 2 U.S.C. § 432 (b). Still, Toledano insists that he didn’t violate the law and that the district court erred in granting summary judgment against him.”
Teltschik v. Williams & Jensen, Pllc, 683 F. Supp. 2d 33 (D.D.C. 2010). “Regarding allegations 1 and 2, Teltschik argues that defendants’ failure to forward contributions for ARMPAC to him, as required by 2 U.S.C. § 432 (b)(1), 5 and their failure and refusal to forward ARMPAC’s original records to him, as required by 2 U.”
McCutcheon v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 134 S. Ct. 1434 (2014). “2 U.S.C. § 432 (e)(3)(B). In the 2012 election, House candidates spent a total of $1.”
Common Cause v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 842 F.2d 436 (D.C. Cir. 1988). “1986), rejecting its interpretation of a provision of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA or the Act), which prohibits the use of a candidate’s name in the “name” of any unauthorized “political committee,” 2 U.S.C. § 432 (e)(4). The FEC construes the bar as applying only to…”
Brown v. Socialist Workers '74 Campaign Comm. (Ohio), 459 U.S. 87 (1982). “2 U. S. C. §§ 432 (c) and (d), and 434(a) and (b).”
Speechnow.org v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 599 F.3d 686 (D.C. Cir. 2010). “Whether the organizational, administrative, and continuous reporting requirements set forth in 2 U.S.C. §§ 432 , 433, and 434(a) violate the First Amendment by requiring David Keating, SpeechNow.”
Ralph J. Galliano v. United States Postal Serv., 836 F.2d 1362 (D.C. Cir. 1988). “RUTH BADER GINSBURG, Circuit Judge: This case presents an issue of first impression concerning the regulation of solicitations for political contributions: Do the prescriptions of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA or Act) — in particular, those on name identifications and…”
Pursuing Am.'s Greatness v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 831 F.3d 500 (D.C. Cir. 2016). “Although those cases characterized FECA's naming restrictions (then codified at 2 U.S.C. § 432 (e)(4)) as part of a disclosure regime, they did not assess the constitutionality of section 102.”
Buckley v. Valeo, 519 F.2d 821 (D.C. Cir. 1975). “2 U.S.C. §§ 432 , 438. The political committee must disclose the name, occupation and principal place of business of anyone who contributes in excess of $100.”
Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976). “e challenged statutes that persons disclose the amounts that they contribute or expend in connection with elections for federal office or that candidates for such office disclose the amounts that they expend in their campaigns violate the rights of one or more of the plaintiffs…”
Martin v. Commonwealth, 96 S.W.3d 38 (Ky. 2003). “at 623 (construing the definition of "expenditure" in 2 U.S.C. § 432 (9)(A) to mean "expenditure for express advocacy"); Buckley, supra, 424 U.”
Fed. Election Comm'n v. Hall-Tyner Election Campaign Comm., 524 F. Supp. 955 (S.D.N.Y. 1981). “2 U.S.C. § 432 (c). The FECA disclosure provisions required that the Committee include in filings with the FEC the recorded information pertaining to contributors of more than $100.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.