2 U.S.C. § 441d
Transferred
[transferred]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 42
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1980–2023 · 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). “BCRA § 311(1); FECA § 318(a); 2 U.S.C. § 441d(a). Pursuant to Section 318 of FECA, such communications must clearly state information about the sponsor, 2 U.”
Common Cause v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 842 F.2d 436 (D.C. Cir. 1988). “18 The FEC explained that “[o]ther uses of the stationery that are not subject to 2 U.S.C. § 441d could be made without need to include the new official committee name.”
Fed. Election Comm'n v. Pub. Citizen, Inc, 268 F.3d 1283 (11th Cir. 2001). “PER CURIAM: In this case, we consider a challenge to 2 U.S.C. § 441d(a)’s requirement that a communication expressly advocating the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate disclose whether the communication was authorized by a candidate or candidate’s committee.”
Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, Inc. v. Swanson, 692 F.3d 864 (8th Cir. 2012). “at 913-16 (analyzing 2 U.S.C. §§ 441d(d)(2), 434(f)(1)). The federal law required filing a disclosure report only when a corporation (or anyone else) spent more than $10,000 on electioneering communication (e.”
State v. Petersilie, 432 S.E.2d 832 (N.C. 1993). “2 U.S.C. § 441d (1988); United States v. Scott, 195 F.”
Free Speech v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 720 F.3d 788 (10th Cir. 2013). “22 (b); the standard used by the FEC to determine whether a request for funds is a solicitation of contributions under 2 U.S.C. § 441d(a); and the FEC’s policy of determining political committee status on a case-by-case basis.”
McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n, 514 U.S. 334 (1995). “§ 1-1420 (1992), and as does the Federal Government where advertising relating to candidates for federal office is concerned, see 2 U. S. C. § 441d(a). Such a universal 3 and long-established American legislative practice must be given precedence, I think, over historical and…”
Vermont Right to Life Comm., Inc. v. Sorrell, 875 F. Supp. 2d 376 (D. Vt. 2012). “2 U.S.C. § 441d(a). Those communications must “clearly state” who paid for and authorized them, and, if not paid for or authorized by a candidate, “clearly state” the street address, web address, and telephone number of the person who paid for it and also state that it was “not…”
Nat'l Org. for Marriage v. McKee, 649 F.3d 34 (1st Cir. 2011). “at 913-14 (citing 2 U.S.C. § 441d), and they bear a close relation to Maine’s interest in dissemination of information regarding the financing of political messages.”
Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Wash. v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 316 F. Supp. 3d 349 (D.C. Cir. 2018). “In Survival Education Fund , the Second Circuit considered the meaning of "solicits any contribution," in a FECA provision then-codified at 2 U.S.C. § 441d(a)(3), requiring certain disclosures on direct mailings.”
Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, Inc. v. Swanson, 640 F.3d 304 (8th Cir. 2011). “at 913-16 (analyzing 2 U.S.C. §§ 441d(d)(2), 434(f)(1)), required filing a disclosure report only when a corporation (or anyone else) spent more than $10,000 on electioneering communications (e.”
Wisconsin Right to Life State v. Timothy Vocke, 751 F.3d 804 (7th Cir. 2014). “” 2 U.S.C. § 441d(d)(2), (a)(3); see also Citizens United, 558 U.”
— 2 U.S.C. § 441d(a) — 15 cases
McConnell v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 251 F. Supp. 2d 176 (D.D.C. 2003). “BCRA § 311(1); FECA § 318(a); 2 U.S.C. § 441d(a). Pursuant to Section 318 of FECA, such communications must clearly state information about the sponsor, 2 U.”
Fed. Election Comm'n v. Pub. Citizen, Inc, 268 F.3d 1283 (11th Cir. 2001). “PER CURIAM: In this case, we consider a challenge to 2 U.S.C. § 441d(a)’s requirement that a communication expressly advocating the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate disclose whether the communication was authorized by a candidate or candidate’s committee.”
Free Speech v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 720 F.3d 788 (10th Cir. 2013). “22 (b); the standard used by the FEC to determine whether a request for funds is a solicitation of contributions under 2 U.S.C. § 441d(a); and the FEC’s policy of determining political committee status on a case-by-case basis.”
McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n, 514 U.S. 334 (1995). “§ 1-1420 (1992), and as does the Federal Government where advertising relating to candidates for federal office is concerned, see 2 U. S. C. § 441d(a). Such a universal 3 and long-established American legislative practice must be given precedence, I think, over historical and…”
Common Cause v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 842 F.2d 436 (D.C. Cir. 1988). “18 The FEC explained that “[o]ther uses of the stationery that are not subject to 2 U.S.C. § 441d could be made without need to include the new official committee name.”
— 2 U.S.C. § 441d(a)(1) — 1 case
Fed. Election Comm'n v. Nat'l Repub. Senatorial Comm., 761 F. Supp. 813 (D.D.C. 1991).
— 2 U.S.C. § 441d(a)(2) — 1 case
McConnell v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 251 F. Supp. 2d 176 (D.D.C. 2003). “BCRA § 311(1); FECA § 318(a); 2 U.S.C. § 441d(a). Pursuant to Section 318 of FECA, such communications must clearly state information about the sponsor, 2 U.”
— 2 U.S.C. § 441d(a)(3) — 11 cases
McConnell v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 251 F. Supp. 2d 176 (D.D.C. 2003). “BCRA § 311(1); FECA § 318(a); 2 U.S.C. § 441d(a). Pursuant to Section 318 of FECA, such communications must clearly state information about the sponsor, 2 U.”
Common Cause v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 842 F.2d 436 (D.C. Cir. 1988). “18 The FEC explained that “[o]ther uses of the stationery that are not subject to 2 U.S.C. § 441d could be made without need to include the new official committee name.”
Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Wash. v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 316 F. Supp. 3d 349 (D.C. Cir. 2018). “In Survival Education Fund , the Second Circuit considered the meaning of "solicits any contribution," in a FECA provision then-codified at 2 U.S.C. § 441d(a)(3), requiring certain disclosures on direct mailings.”
Fed. Election Comm'n v. Christian Action Network, 894 F. Supp. 946 (W.D. Va. 1995).
Ralph J. Galliano v. United States Postal Serv., 836 F.2d 1362 (D.C. Cir. 1988).
— 2 U.S.C. § 441d(a)(l) — 1 case
Common Cause v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 729 F. Supp. 148 (D.D.C. 1990).
— 2 U.S.C. § 441d(c) — 3 cases
McConnell v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 251 F. Supp. 2d 176 (D.D.C. 2003). “BCRA § 311(1); FECA § 318(a); 2 U.S.C. § 441d(a). Pursuant to Section 318 of FECA, such communications must clearly state information about the sponsor, 2 U.”
Vermont Right to Life Comm., Inc. v. Sorrell, 875 F. Supp. 2d 376 (D. Vt. 2012). “2 U.S.C. § 441d(a). Those communications must “clearly state” who paid for and authorized them, and, if not paid for or authorized by a candidate, “clearly state” the street address, web address, and telephone number of the person who paid for it and also state that it was “not…”
Fed. Election Comm'n v. Novacek, 739 F. Supp. 2d 957 (N.D. Tex. 2010).
— 2 U.S.C. § 441d(d)(2) — 6 cases
Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, Inc. v. Swanson, 692 F.3d 864 (8th Cir. 2012). “at 913-16 (analyzing 2 U.S.C. §§ 441d(d)(2), 434(f)(1)). The federal law required filing a disclosure report only when a corporation (or anyone else) spent more than $10,000 on electioneering communication (e.”
Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, Inc. v. Swanson, 640 F.3d 304 (8th Cir. 2011). “at 913-16 (analyzing 2 U.S.C. §§ 441d(d)(2), 434(f)(1)), required filing a disclosure report only when a corporation (or anyone else) spent more than $10,000 on electioneering communications (e.”
Wisconsin Right to Life State v. Timothy Vocke, 751 F.3d 804 (7th Cir. 2014). “” 2 U.S.C. § 441d(d)(2), (a)(3); see also Citizens United, 558 U.”
Jimmy Yamada v. William Snipes, 786 F.3d 1182 (9th Cir. 2015).
Nat'l Org. for Marr v. Walter McKee (1st Cir. 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.