2 U.S.C. § 441
Repealed. Pub. L. 94–283, title I, § 112(1), May 11, 1976, 90 Stat. 486
[repealed]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 42
cases, 1974–2020 · 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). “AFL-CIO 000593; [DEV 124] (emphasis added); see also AFL-CIO 000602.”
Fed. Election Comm'n v. Democratic Senatorial Campaign Comm., 454 U.S. 27 (1981). “The issue presented in this case is whether the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) violated the Federal Election Campaign Act, 2 U. S. C. § 441 et seq. (1976 ed. and Supp.”
United States v. Tim M. Barcock, 530 F.2d 1051 (D.C. Cir. 1976). “2 U.S.C. § 441 : (a) Any person who violates any of the provisions of this subchapter shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.”
Buckley v. Valeo, 519 F.2d 821 (D.C. Cir. 1975). “) Answer: YES (f)Does 2 U.S.C. § 441 violate such rights, in that it provides criminal penalties for violations of Chapter 14 of Title 2 U.”
Cao v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 688 F. Supp. 2d 498 (E.D. La. 2010). “§ 441a(a)(2)(A) and Coordinated Contribution Provision at 2 U.S.C. § 441 a(a)(7)(B)(i) (treating coordinated expenditures as “contributions”) violate the First Amendment rights of one or more plaintiffs as applied to coordinated expenditures for (a) communications .”
Shays v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 414 F.3d 76 (D.C. Cir. 2005). “§ 431(20)(A)(i)-(ii)) — and under no circumstances may Levin funds finance expenditures “referring] to a clearly identified candidate for Federal office,” 2 U.S.C. §§ 441 i(b)(2)(B)(i). See generally McConnell, 540 U.”
Nat'l Org. for Marriage v. McKee, 649 F.3d 34 (1st Cir. 2011). “at 914 (quoting 2 U.S.C. § 441 d(d) (2)). 37 .NOM argues that, though Citizens United and other courts may have approved disclaimer and attribution limitations in the precise circumstances before them, such measures have never been approved per se.”
Fed. Election Comm'n v. T. Bertram Lance, 617 F.2d 365 (5th Cir. 1980). “475, 495 (appearing at note to 2 U.S.C. § 441 (1976)). Since section 441b contains the same proscription as section 610, it follows that any action falling within the terms of section 441b could not have been “innocent when done” if the act was committed while section 610 was in…”
Shays v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 337 F. Supp. 2d 28 (D.D.C. 2004). “2 U.S.C. § 441 i(b)(2)(A). The statute expressly delegates to the FEC the authority to determine the allocation rules.”
Emily's List v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 581 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2009). “2d 461 (2001); see also 2 U.S.C. § 441 a(a)(7)(B). [4] Many have criticized the distinction between contributions and expenditures because, in their view, they are "two sides of the same First Amendment coin.”
John Novosel v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 721 F.2d 894 (3rd Cir. 1983). “1641 , 1651 (1982): The notion that soulless, inarticulate corporations could even hold a political view, let alone insist on the right to express it, would be incomprehensible to the scholastic philosophers and the classical economists who provided the conceptual ground for…”
Shays v. United States Fed. Election Comm'n, 508 F. Supp. 2d 10 (D.D.C. 2007). “To reiterate, FECA provides that expenditures that are coordinated with a candidate constitute campaign contributions, 2 U.S.C. § 441 (a)(a)(7)(B)(i), and, in turn, defines an “expenditure” as “any purchase, payment, distribution, loan, advance, deposit, or gift of money or…”
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.