2 U.S.C. § 438
Transferred
[transferred]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 55
cases, 1972–2018 · leading case: Ramsey Clark v. Francis R. Valeo, Sec'y of the United States Senate, 559 F.2d 642 (D.C. Cir. 1977).
Ramsey Clark v. Francis R. Valeo, Sec'y of the United States Senate, 559 F.2d 642 (D.C. Cir. 1977). “They are: 2 U.S.C. § 438 (c) in FECA itself, and 26 U.”
Shays v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 414 F.3d 76 (D.C. Cir. 2005). “They argued that by construing BCRA’s prohibitions too narrowly, these rules effectively permit conduct that BCRA bans, an effect that arises because the statute gives a defense against “any sanction” to “any person” relying in good faith on FEC regulations.”
Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976). “"Answer: UNRIPE FOR RESOLUTION "(d) Does 2 U. S. C. § 438 (c) violate such rights, in that it empowers the Federal Election Commission to make rules under the FECA in the manner specified therein? .”
Fed. Election Comm'n v. Political Contributions Data, Inc., 807 F. Supp. 311 (S.D.N.Y. 1992). “PDA then requested that the FEC issue an advisory opinion as to whether the selling of these lists comported with the statutory prohibition set forth in 2 U.S.C. § 438 (a)(4). The FEC did so (Advisory Opinion 1986-25), concluding that the “proposal to engage in the for-profit…”
McConnell v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 251 F. Supp. 2d 176 (D.D.C. 2003). “2 U.S.C. § 438 (e) ("[A]ny person who relies upon a rule or regulation proscribed by the [FEC] .”
Weber v. Heaney, 793 F. Supp. 1438 (D. Minnesota 1992). “” 2 U.S.C. § 438 (a)(10). The commission must not only store the volumes of reports and statements that are required to be filed by those engaging in regulated political activities, but must also file and index them as well as make them available for public inspection.”
Becker v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 230 F.3d 381 (1st Cir. 2000). “In accordance with the requirements of the FECA, 2 U.S.C. § 438 (d), the proposed regulations, along with the FEC’s analysis, were sent to Congress and did not become final until Congress had opportunity to express disapproval.”
Buckley v. Valeo, 519 F.2d 821 (D.C. Cir. 1975). “) Answer: UNRIPE FOR RESOLUTION (d) Does 2 U.S.C. § 438 (c) violate such rights, in that it empowers the Federal Election Commission to make rules under the FECA in the manner specified therein? (FAC ¶¶ 68, 86, 87, 88.”
Fed. Election Comm'n v. MacHinists Non-Partisan Political League, 655 F.2d 380 (D.C. Cir. 1981). “It is noteworthy in this regard that the 1979 Amendments to FECA abolished the “random” auditing authority which the FEC previously possessed under 2 U.S.C. § 438 (a)(8). See 2 U.S.C. § 438 (b) (Supp.”
Nat'l Repub. Cong. Comm., an Unincorporated Ass'n v. Legi-Tech Corp. (Two Cases), 795 F.2d 190 (D.C. Cir. 1986). “” 2 U.S.C. § 438 (a)(4) (1982). 2 Legi-Tech Corp.”
Shays v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 424 F. Supp. 2d 100 (D.D.C. 2006). “2 U.S.C. § 438 (e). The FEC also did not discuss whether, or why, case-by-case adjudication would be more effective than a rule at preventing the flow of soft money into federal campaigns.”
Teper v. Miller, 82 F.3d 989 (11th Cir. 1996). “With respect to the type of regulation imposed by O.C.G.A. § 21-5-35, the FEC's interpretation of FECA is unambiguous: such state laws are preempted.”
— 2 U.S.C. § 438(b) — 1 case
Untitled Texas Attorney Gen. Opinion (Tex. Att'y Gen. 1974).
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.