U.S. Code » Title 2 » Chapter CHAPTER 15— OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT

2 U.S.C. § 481

Authorization of appropriations; availability of appropriations

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 2 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) To enable the Office to carry out its powers and duties, there is hereby authorized to be appropriated to the Office, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, not to exceed $5,000,000 in the aggregate for the two fiscal years ending June 30, 1973, and June 30, 1974, and thereafter such sums as may be necessary.(b) Appropriations made pursuant to the authority provided in subsection (a) shall remain available for obligation, for expenditure, or for obligation and expenditure for such period or periods as may be specified in the Act making such appropriations.(Pub. L. 92–484, § 12, Oct. 13, 1972, 86 Stat. 803.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1994–2010 · leading case: Fed. Election Comm'n v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11 (1998).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Fed. Election Comm'n v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11 (1998). “11 , as amended, 2 U. S. C. §481 (4), and, for that reason, the FEC has refused to require AIPAC to make disclosures regarding its membership, contributions, and expenditures that FECA would otherwise require.”
Shays v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 424 F. Supp. 2d 100 (D.D.C. 2006). “11 , as amended, 2 U.S.C. § 481 et seq. and Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.”
Colorado Educ. Ass'n v. Rutt, 184 P.3d 65 (Colo. 2008). “Officially defined as a type of political committee, see 2 U.S.C. § 481 (4)(B) (2006), segregated funds may be established and "utilized for political *85 purposes by a .”
Shays v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 337 F. Supp. 2d 28 (D.D.C. 2004). “” 2 U.S.C. § 481 (22). The FEC promulgated a regulation defining “public communication” as “a communication by means of any broadcast, cable or satellite communication, newspaper, magazine, outdoor advertising facility, mass mailing or telephone bank to the general public, or…”
Froelich v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 855 F. Supp. 868 (E.D. Va. 1994). “mendment, and the separation of powers doctrine of the Constitution are being violated because the candidate defendants for the Senate of the United States for the Commonwealth of Virginia have and are soliciting, accepting, and using contributions from individuals who are not…”
Colorado Ethics Watch v. Senate Majority Fund, LLC, 275 P.3d 674 (Colo. Ct. App. 2010). “612 , the United States Supreme Court was asked to review the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA), 2 U.S.C. §§ 481 to 457 (1970 ed., Supp. IV).”
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.