2 U.S.C. § 437g
Transferred
[transferred]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 266
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1975–2025 · leading case: Federal Election Commission v. Congressman Charles G. Rose
Federal Election Commission v. Congressman Charles G. Rose (1986)
“Fourth, a judicial order in 1984, when the District Court ruled on the merits, may well have adversely affected the FEC’s ability to attend to "activities of a higher or competing priority,” not the least of which was the Presidential election of that year.”
McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003)
“See 2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(1), (2) (FEC authorized to investigate potential election law violations brought to its attention by private-party complaints); supra Findings 61b, 64b at pages 329-31; see also Chamber of Commerce Br.”
California Medical Ass'n v. Federal Election Commission (1981)
“First, such questions may arise in the course of an enforcement proceeding brought by the Commission under 2 U. S. C. § 437g (1976 ed. and Supp. III).”
American Federation of Labor & Congress of Industrial Organizations v. Federal Election Commission (2001)
“The process by which the FEC enforces FECA is set forth fully in 2 U.S.C. § 437g, which is known as the ''Enforcement” provision.”
Federal Election Commission v. Akins (1998)
“has occurred," 2 U. S. C. § 437g(a)(1) (emphasis added), but accords a right to judicial relief only to "[a]ny party aggrieved by an order of the Commission dismissing a complaint filed by such party," § 437g(a)(8)(A) (emphasis added).”
Natural Law Party of the United States v. Federal Election Commission (2000)
“2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(2). After the completion of the investigation, if the FEC determines by an affirmative vote of four members that there is “probable cause” to believe that a violation has taken place, it must attempt to reach a conciliation agreement.”
United States v. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 701, and Russell E. Joy (1980)
“2 U.S.C. § 437g (a)(5)(D). Appellees also find support for their position in language used by Senator Clark in his successful opposition to a provision in the original 1976 Senate bill that would have barred the Department of Justice from instituting a criminal prosecution if…”
Alliance for Democracy v. Federal Election Commission (2004)
“2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(2). If the Commission finds that a reason to believe exists, it can proceed to “make an investigation of [the] alleged violation, which may include a field investigation or audit, in accordance with the provisions of [section 437g(a) ].”
Shays v. Federal Election Commission (2005)
“1995) (discussing 2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(8)) — an option that would make no sense if enforcement of these statutes couldn’t protect the two Congressmen’s interests.”
Federal Election Commission v. National Conservative Political Action Committee (1985)
“Consistent with FEC's supervisory role, Congress provided an administrative complaint procedure in 2 U. S. C. § 437g, through which the Democrats could have pursued their dispute with the PACs.”
Cort v. Ash (1975)
“” 2 U. S. C. § 437g (a) (1) (A) (1970 ed., Supp.”
Buckley v. Valeo (1976)
“"(c) Does 2 U. S. C. § 437g (a) violate such rights, in that it empowers the Federal Election Commission and the Attorney General to bring civil actions (including proceedings for injunctions) against any person who has engaged or who may engage in acts or practices which…”
— 2 U.S.C. § 437g(12) — 1 case
— 2 U.S.C. § 437g(5)(A) — 1 case
— 2 U.S.C. § 437g(6) — 1 case
Friends of Queen v. Hise (2012)
— 2 U.S.C. § 437g(8)(A) — 6 cases
— 2 U.S.C. § 437g(8)(C) — 1 case
— 2 U.S.C. § 437g(a) — 15 cases
Buckley v. Valeo (1975)
American Federation of Labor & Congress of Industrial Organizations v. Federal Election Commission (2003)
Beam v. Gonzales (2008)
— 2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(1) — 23 cases
McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003)
“See 2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(1), (2) (FEC authorized to investigate potential election law violations brought to its attention by private-party complaints); supra Findings 61b, 64b at pages 329-31; see also Chamber of Commerce Br.”
Federal Election Commission v. Congressman Charles G. Rose (1986)
“Fourth, a judicial order in 1984, when the District Court ruled on the merits, may well have adversely affected the FEC’s ability to attend to "activities of a higher or competing priority,” not the least of which was the Presidential election of that year.”
Federal Election Commission v. Akins (1998)
“has occurred," 2 U. S. C. § 437g(a)(1) (emphasis added), but accords a right to judicial relief only to "[a]ny party aggrieved by an order of the Commission dismissing a complaint filed by such party," § 437g(a)(8)(A) (emphasis added).”
— 2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(10) — 4 cases
Walther v. Baucus (1979)
— 2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(12) — 5 cases
McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003)
“See 2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(1), (2) (FEC authorized to investigate potential election law violations brought to its attention by private-party complaints); supra Findings 61b, 64b at pages 329-31; see also Chamber of Commerce Br.”
— 2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(12)(A) — 13 cases
In re Sealed Case (2001)
American Federation of Labor & Congress of Industrial Organizations v. Federal Election Commission (2001)
“The process by which the FEC enforces FECA is set forth fully in 2 U.S.C. § 437g, which is known as the ''Enforcement” provision.”
In Re Sealed Case 00-5116 (2001)
American Federation of Labor & Congress of Industrial Organizations v. Federal Election Commission (2003)
— 2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(12)(B) — 2 cases
— 2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(2) — 52 cases
American Federation of Labor & Congress of Industrial Organizations v. Federal Election Commission (2001)
“The process by which the FEC enforces FECA is set forth fully in 2 U.S.C. § 437g, which is known as the ''Enforcement” provision.”
In re Sealed Case (2001)
— 2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(3) — 16 cases
American Federation of Labor & Congress of Industrial Organizations v. Federal Election Commission (2001)
“The process by which the FEC enforces FECA is set forth fully in 2 U.S.C. § 437g, which is known as the ''Enforcement” provision.”
— 2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(3)(A) — 2 cases
— 2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(3)(B) — 2 cases
United States v. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 701, and Russell E. Joy (1980)
“2 U.S.C. § 437g (a)(5)(D). Appellees also find support for their position in language used by Senator Clark in his successful opposition to a provision in the original 1976 Senate bill that would have barred the Department of Justice from instituting a criminal prosecution if…”
United States v. Jackson (1977)
— 2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(4) — 11 cases
United States v. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 701, and Russell E. Joy (1980)
“2 U.S.C. § 437g (a)(5)(D). Appellees also find support for their position in language used by Senator Clark in his successful opposition to a provision in the original 1976 Senate bill that would have barred the Department of Justice from instituting a criminal prosecution if…”
— 2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(4)(A) — 5 cases
Fec v. Nrsc (1995)
— 2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(4)(A)(I) — 2 cases
— 2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(4)(A)(i) — 20 cases
In Re SEALED CASE (2000)
Alliance for Democracy v. Federal Election Commission (2004)
“2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(2). If the Commission finds that a reason to believe exists, it can proceed to “make an investigation of [the] alleged violation, which may include a field investigation or audit, in accordance with the provisions of [section 437g(a) ].”
— 2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(4)(A)(ii) — 1 case
— 2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(4)(B) — 1 case
— 2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(4)(B)(i) — 3 cases
— 2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(4)(B)(ii) — 2 cases
American Federation of Labor & Congress of Industrial Organizations v. Federal Election Commission (2003)
American Federation of Labor & Congress of Industrial Organizations v. Federal Election Commission (2001)
“The process by which the FEC enforces FECA is set forth fully in 2 U.S.C. § 437g, which is known as the ''Enforcement” provision.”
— 2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(4)(C)(i) — 1 case
— 2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(4)(C)(ii) — 1 case
— 2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(4)(C)(iii) — 1 case
— 2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(4)(C)(v) — 2 cases
McChesney v. Petersen (2016)
McChesney v. Peterson (2016)
— 2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(5) — 2 cases
Buckley v. Valeo (1975)
— 2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(5)(A) — 6 cases
United States v. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 701, and Russell E. Joy (1980)
“2 U.S.C. § 437g (a)(5)(D). Appellees also find support for their position in language used by Senator Clark in his successful opposition to a provision in the original 1976 Senate bill that would have barred the Department of Justice from instituting a criminal prosecution if…”
— 2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(5)(B) — 7 cases
United States v. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 701, and Russell E. Joy (1980)
“2 U.S.C. § 437g (a)(5)(D). Appellees also find support for their position in language used by Senator Clark in his successful opposition to a provision in the original 1976 Senate bill that would have barred the Department of Justice from instituting a criminal prosecution if…”
— 2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(5)(C) — 11 cases
United States v. Hsia (1998)
Marcus v. Holder (2009)
United States v. Trie (1998)
— 2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(5)(D) — 7 cases
United States v. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 701, and Russell E. Joy (1980)
“2 U.S.C. § 437g (a)(5)(D). Appellees also find support for their position in language used by Senator Clark in his successful opposition to a provision in the original 1976 Senate bill that would have barred the Department of Justice from instituting a criminal prosecution if…”
United States v. Hsia (1998)
United States v. Tonry (1977)
— 2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(6) — 11 cases
Federal Election Commission v. National Conservative Political Action Committee (1985)
“Consistent with FEC's supervisory role, Congress provided an administrative complaint procedure in 2 U. S. C. § 437g, through which the Democrats could have pursued their dispute with the PACs.”
Federal Election Commission v. Congressman Charles G. Rose (1986)
“Fourth, a judicial order in 1984, when the District Court ruled on the merits, may well have adversely affected the FEC’s ability to attend to "activities of a higher or competing priority,” not the least of which was the Presidential election of that year.”
— 2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(6)(A) — 29 cases
Sossamon v. Texas (2011)
— 2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(6)(B) — 10 cases
— 2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(6)(C) — 5 cases
— 2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(7) — 6 cases
Buckley v. Valeo (1975)
— 2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(8) — 40 cases
Shays v. Federal Election Commission (2005)
“1995) (discussing 2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(8)) — an option that would make no sense if enforcement of these statutes couldn’t protect the two Congressmen’s interests.”
Federal Election Commission v. Congressman Charles G. Rose (1986)
“Fourth, a judicial order in 1984, when the District Court ruled on the merits, may well have adversely affected the FEC’s ability to attend to "activities of a higher or competing priority,” not the least of which was the Presidential election of that year.”
Alliance for Democracy v. Federal Election Commission (2004)
“2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(2). If the Commission finds that a reason to believe exists, it can proceed to “make an investigation of [the] alleged violation, which may include a field investigation or audit, in accordance with the provisions of [section 437g(a) ].”
Berg v. Obama (2008)
— 2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(8)(A) — 51 cases
Natural Law Party of the United States v. Federal Election Commission (2000)
“2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(2). After the completion of the investigation, if the FEC determines by an affirmative vote of four members that there is “probable cause” to believe that a violation has taken place, it must attempt to reach a conciliation agreement.”
Federal Election Commission v. Akins (1998)
“has occurred," 2 U. S. C. § 437g(a)(1) (emphasis added), but accords a right to judicial relief only to "[a]ny party aggrieved by an order of the Commission dismissing a complaint filed by such party," § 437g(a)(8)(A) (emphasis added).”
— 2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(8)(B) — 6 cases
Edward W. Spannaus, Treasurer of the Larouche Democratic Campaign v. Federal Election Commission (1993)
— 2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(8)(C) — 33 cases
Alliance for Democracy v. Federal Election Commission (2004)
“2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(2). If the Commission finds that a reason to believe exists, it can proceed to “make an investigation of [the] alleged violation, which may include a field investigation or audit, in accordance with the provisions of [section 437g(a) ].”
Federal Election Commission v. Congressman Charles G. Rose (1986)
“Fourth, a judicial order in 1984, when the District Court ruled on the merits, may well have adversely affected the FEC’s ability to attend to "activities of a higher or competing priority,” not the least of which was the Presidential election of that year.”
Campaign Legal Center v. FEC (2020)
— 2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(9) — 12 cases
Cort v. Ash (1975)
“” 2 U. S. C. § 437g (a) (1) (A) (1970 ed., Supp.”
Walther v. Baucus (1979)
— 2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(9)(A) — 2 cases
Walther v. Stewart (1979)
— 2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(9)(C) — 5 cases
Walther v. Stewart (1979)
— 2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(l) — 50 cases
Natural Law Party of the United States v. Federal Election Commission (2000)
“2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(2). After the completion of the investigation, if the FEC determines by an affirmative vote of four members that there is “probable cause” to believe that a violation has taken place, it must attempt to reach a conciliation agreement.”
Federal Election Commission v. Akins (1998)
“has occurred," 2 U. S. C. § 437g(a)(1) (emphasis added), but accords a right to judicial relief only to "[a]ny party aggrieved by an order of the Commission dismissing a complaint filed by such party," § 437g(a)(8)(A) (emphasis added).”
Federal Election Commission v. Congressman Charles G. Rose (1986)
“Fourth, a judicial order in 1984, when the District Court ruled on the merits, may well have adversely affected the FEC’s ability to attend to "activities of a higher or competing priority,” not the least of which was the Presidential election of that year.”
American Federation of Labor & Congress of Industrial Organizations v. Federal Election Commission (2001)
“The process by which the FEC enforces FECA is set forth fully in 2 U.S.C. § 437g, which is known as the ''Enforcement” provision.”
United States v. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 701, and Russell E. Joy (1980)
“2 U.S.C. § 437g (a)(5)(D). Appellees also find support for their position in language used by Senator Clark in his successful opposition to a provision in the original 1976 Senate bill that would have barred the Department of Justice from instituting a criminal prosecution if…”
— 2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(l)(7) — 1 case
— 2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(l2)(A) — 1 case
— 2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(ll) — 2 cases
— 2 U.S.C. § 437g(aX3) — 1 case
— 2 U.S.C. § 437g(aX4)(A)(i) — 1 case
— 2 U.S.C. § 437g(aX8)(C) — 1 case
— 2 U.S.C. § 437g(aXl) — 1 case
— 2 U.S.C. § 437g(c) — 2 cases
— 2 U.S.C. § 437g(d) — 13 cases
United States v. Hsia (1998)
— 2 U.S.C. § 437g(d)(1)(A) — 4 cases
McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003)
“See 2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(1), (2) (FEC authorized to investigate potential election law violations brought to its attention by private-party complaints); supra Findings 61b, 64b at pages 329-31; see also Chamber of Commerce Br.”
United States v. Danielczyk (2013)
— 2 U.S.C. § 437g(d)(1)(A)(i) — 2 cases
United States v. Danielczyk (2011)
— 2 U.S.C. § 437g(d)(1)(D) — 1 case
United States v. Danielczyk (2011)
— 2 U.S.C. § 437g(d)(2) — 2 cases
Marcus v. Holder (2009)
— 2 U.S.C. § 437g(d)(l) — 1 case
United States v. Trie (1998)
— 2 U.S.C. § 437g(d)(l)(A) — 8 cases
McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003)
“See 2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(1), (2) (FEC authorized to investigate potential election law violations brought to its attention by private-party complaints); supra Findings 61b, 64b at pages 329-31; see also Chamber of Commerce Br.”
United States v. Hsia (1998)
— 2 U.S.C. § 437g(d)(l)(A)(i) — 3 cases
United States v. Danielczyk (2012)
United States v. Danielczyk (2011)
United States v. Sorenson (2017)
— 2 U.S.C. § 437g(d)(l)(D) — 1 case
United States v. Danielczyk (2011)
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.