2 U.S.C. § 434
Transferred
[transferred]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 167
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1972–2026 · leading case: McConnell v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 251 F. Supp. 2d 176 (D.D.C. 2003).
McConnell v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 251 F. Supp. 2d 176 (D.D.C. 2003). “BCRA § 201(a); FECA § 304(f)(3)(A); 2 U.S.C. § 434 (f)(3)(A). [44] Under this definition, in order to constitute an electioneering communication, therefore, the communication (a) must be disseminated by cable, broadcast, or satellite, (b) must refer to a clearly identified…”
Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Wash. v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 316 F. Supp. 3d 349 (D.C. Cir. 2018). “FEC'S DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFFS' ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT The plaintiffs' administrative complaint alleged that Crossroads GPS's failure to disclose the names of (1) the anonymous donor who promised a $3 million contribution in the spring of 2012, (2) the other contributors to the…”
Ctr. for Individual Freedom v. Madigan, 697 F.3d 464 (7th Cir. 2012). “18 Compare 2 U.S.C. § 434 (f)(3)(A) (“any broadcast, cable or satellite communication”), with 10 ILCS 5/9-1.”
Fed. Election Comm'n v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., 551 U.S. 449 (2007). “Each ad clearly identifies Senator Feingold, who was running (unopposed) in the Wisconsin Democratic primary on September 14, 2004, and each ad would have been "targeted to the relevant electorate," see 2 U.S.C. § 434 (f)(3)(C) (2000 ed., Supp.”
Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976). “(b) Does 2 U. S. C. §§ 434 (b) (1)-(8) (1970 ed., Supp.”
North Carolina Right to Life, Inc. v. Leake, 525 F.3d 274 (4th Cir. 2008). “91 , 2 U.S.C. § 434 (f)(3)(A)(i) (2000 ed. & Supp.”
Iowa Right To Life Comm. v. Megan Tooker, 717 F.3d 576 (8th Cir. 2013). “at 369 ; see also 2 U.S.C. § 434 (c) (requiring a non-PAC making independent expenditures over $250 to disclose its name and address).”
Buckley v. Valeo, 519 F.2d 821 (D.C. Cir. 1975). “During the waiting period, such political committees would be subject to the reporting and disclosures provisions of 2 U.S.C. § 434 . Suggestion that “Contribution” Definition Limits News Stories Question 3(g) asks whether there is a constitutional infirmity in specifically…”
Shays v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 414 F.3d 76 (D.C. Cir. 2005). “The key to these new restrictions is what counts as “electioneering communication” in the first place.”
Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, Inc. v. Swanson, 692 F.3d 864 (8th Cir. 2012). “3d at 696-98 ; see also 2 U.S.C. § 434 (a)(4). But the law upheld in SpeechNow.”
McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n, 514 U.S. 334 (1995). “” 2 U. S. C. § 434 (b)(9) (1970 ed., Supp. IV) (reprinted in Buckley, 424 U.”
Shays v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 337 F. Supp. 2d 28 (D.D.C. 2004). “(citing 2 U.S.C. §§ 434 note, 438a). 37 The Commission also pointed out that “Congress has also used the terms ‘Internet’ and ‘electronic mail’ in other statutes and distinguished them from ‘telecommunications services.”
— 2 U.S.C. § 434(e) — 1 case
Alaska Policy Forum v. Alaska Pub. Offices Comm'n; Yes on 2 for Better Elections; & Protect My Ballot (Alaska 2026).
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.