2 U.S.C. § 437
Transferred
[transferred]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 27
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1977–2023 · 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). “, created pursuant to FECA, 2 U.S.C. § 437 (c), and is charged with enforcing the Act as amended by BCRA.”
Shays v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 424 F. Supp. 2d 100 (D.D.C. 2006). “2 U.S.C. §§ 437 g(a)(l)-(2), 437c(b)(l), 437d(e).”
Delaware Strong Families v. Attorney Gen. Delaware, 793 F.3d 304 (3rd Cir. 2015). “As of September 1, 2014, the relevant provisions of BCRA were transferred from 2 U.S.C. § 437 to 52 U.S.C. § 30104 . We use the updated citations, but note, in the interest of clarity, that the District Court opinion and other disclosure-related opinions employ the old citations.”
Becker v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 230 F.3d 381 (1st Cir. 2000). “” 2 U.S.C. § 437 . Congress also lodged a degree of flexibility in the definitions of “contribution” and “expenditure” in particular where it defined them to “include” certain uses and phrased the exceptions to their general prohibitions as enumerating activities that the terms…”
Ramsey Clark v. Francis R. Valeo, Sec'y of the United States Senate, 559 F.2d 642 (D.C. Cir. 1977). “Here, 2 U.S.C. § 437 (h) has given standing in the Sierra Club sense to any eligible voter.”
Fed. Election Comm'n v. Reform Party of the United States, 479 F.3d 1302 (11th Cir. 2007). “For example, the counterclaim sought a declaratory judgment concerning "the proper construction of 26 USC § 9008 (c) and 2 USC § 437 (2), relating to permissible uses of federal funds for presidential nominating conventions, when applied to the facts of this case; and, the…”
Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Washington v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 401 F. Supp. 2d 115 (D.D.C. 2005). “CREW seeks judicial review, as a party “aggrieved” under 2 U.S.C. § 437 (g)(a)(8)(A), of defendant Federal Election Commission’s (“FEC”) decision to dismiss CREW’s administrative complaint.”
Berg v. Obama, 574 F. Supp. 2d 509 (E.D. Pa. 2008). “The Amended Complaint also adds a Claim for Promissory Estoppel (Count Seven) and includes claims for violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act (“Campaign Act”), 2 U.S.C. § 437 (Count Five), violation of the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.”
Fed. Election Comm'n v. Florida for Kennedy Comm., 681 F.2d 1281 (11th Cir. 1982). “Thus, the pertinent enforcement provisions of 2 U.S.C. § 437 were triggered: (a)(1) Any person who believes a violation of this Act or of chapter 95 or chapter 96 of Title 26 has occurred may file a complaint with the Commission.”
Cooksey v. Stewart, 938 So. 2d 1206 (La. Ct. App. 2006). “See, 2 U.S.C. § 437 . However, in this case, the Commission was not in the process of exercising its quasi-judicial authority at the time the remark was made.”
United States v. Int'l Union of Operating Engineers, Local 701, & Russell E. Joy, 638 F.2d 1161 (9th Cir. 1980). “2 U.S.C. § 437 g(a)(5)(D). From these provisions it is fair to infer that Congress was concerned that complainants and the FEC itself might launch unfounded, partisan accusations that could injure a candidate merely because they were published.”
United States v. Hsia, 24 F. Supp. 2d 33 (D.D.C. 1998). “§ 201, 2 U.S.C. § 437 (g). The legislative history concerning the new FECA criminal provision, however, focused on the need to simplify the enforcement scheme and makes no mention of repealing the more generally applicable provisions of Title 18.”
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.