22 U.S.C. § 4411

Findings; statement of purposes

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 22 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) The Congress finds that there has been established in the District of Columbia a private, nonprofit corporation known as the National Endowment for Democracy (hereafter in this subchapter referred to as the “Endowment”) which is not an agency or establishment of the United States Government.(b) The purposes of the Endowment, as set forth in its articles of incorporation, are—(1) to encourage free and democratic institutions throughout the world through private sector initiatives, including activities which promote the individual rights and freedoms (including internationally recognized human rights) which are essential to the functioning of democratic institutions;(2) to facilitate exchanges between United States private sector groups (especially the two major American political parties, labor, and business) and democratic groups abroad;(3) to promote United States nongovernmental participation (especially through the two major American political parties, labor, business, and other private sector groups) in democratic training programs and democratic institution-building abroad;(4) to strengthen democratic electoral processes abroad through timely measures in cooperation with indigenous democratic forces;(5) to support the participation of the two major American political parties, labor, business, and other United States private sector groups in fostering cooperation with those abroad dedicated to the cultural values, institutions, and organizations of democratic pluralism; and(6) to encourage the establishment and growth of democratic development in a manner consistent both with the broad concerns of United States national interests and with the specific requirements of the democratic groups in other countries which are aided by programs funded by the Endowment.(Pub. L. 98–164, title V, § 502, Nov. 22, 1983, 97 Stat. 1039.)Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesShort Title

Pub. L. 98–164, title V, § 501, Nov. 22, 1983, 97 Stat. 1039, provided that: “This title [enacting this subchapter] may be cited as the ‘National Endowment for Democracy Act’.”

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1990–2022 · leading case: Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173 (1991).
Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173 (1991). · cites it 2× “To hold that the Government unconstitutionally discriminates on the basis of viewpoint when it chooses to fund a program dedicated to advance certain permissible goals, because the program in advancing those goals necessarily discourages alternative goals, would render numerous…”
Nat'l Endowment for the Arts v. Finley, 524 U.S. 569 (1998). · cites it 2× “173, 194 (1991) ("When Congress established a National Endowment for Democracy to encourage other countries to adopt democratic principles, 22 U. S. C. § 4411 (b), it was not constitutionally required to fund a program to encourage competing lines of political philosophy such as…”
Pooh-Bah Enter., Inc. v. Cnty. of Cook, 905 N.E.2d 781 (Ill. 2009). “When Congress established a National Endowment for Democracy to encourage other countries to adopt democratic principles, 22 U.S.C. §4411 (b), it was not constitutionally required to fund a program to encourage competing lines of political philosophy such as communism and…”
Am. Library Ass'n, Inc. v. United States, 201 F. Supp. 2d 401 (E.D. Pa. 2002). “In this context, content-based restrictions on the speech that government chooses to subsidize are clearly subject to at most rational basis review, and even viewpoint discrimination is permissible.”
Guo v. Nat'l Endowment for Democracy (D.D.C. 2022). “¶ 17; 22 U.S.C. § 4411 . NED “exercise[s] substantial day- to-day control” over CDP funds and passes those funds onto entities who apply for them.”
Exec. Branch Encouragement of Contributions to a Nicaraguan Opposition Party (OLC 1990). “” 22 U.S.C. § 4411 . The Endowment receives grants from the United States Information Agency.”
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.