Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Fec Vs. National Right to Work Comm.

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Dec 13, 1982

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

57 entries 7 linked 50 unlinked
Show
  1. Naacp Vs. Alabama US Supreme Court · Jun 08, 1959
  2. Naacp Vs. Button US Supreme Court · Jan 14, 1963
  3. Speiser Vs. Randall US Supreme Court · Jun 30, 1958
  4. Burks Vs. Lasker US Supreme Court · May 14, 1979
  5. Buckley Vs. Valeo US Supreme Court · Jan 30, 1976
  6. Kusper Vs. Pontikes US Supreme Court · Nov 19, 1973
  7. Shelton Vs. Tucker US Supreme Court · Dec 12, 1960
  8. FEC v. National
    Search
  9. Right to Work Comm. - 459 U.S. 197 (1982) U.S. Supreme Court FEC v. National
    Search
  10. Right to Work Comm., 459 U.S. 197 (1982) Federal Election Commission v. National
    Search
  11. We also assume, since there is no body of federal law of corporations, see Burks v. Lasker
    Search
  12. RFC v. Beaver
    Search
  13. in order to prevent impermissible interference with the constitutional rights enunciated in cases such as NAACP v. Button
    Search
  14. U. S. 415 (1963), and Schaumburg v. Citizens
    Search
  15. U. S. 620 (1980). Similarly, respondent places considerable reliance on our statement in Buckley v. Valeo
    Search
  16. involving associational freedoms establish that the right of association is a 'basic constitutional freedom,' Kusper v. Pontikes
    Search
  17. and a right Page 459 U. S. 207 which, like free speech, lies at the foundation of a free society.' Shelton v. Tucker
    Search
  18. U. S. 479 , 364 U. S. 486 (1960). See, e.g., Bates v. Little
    Search
  19. action which may have the effect of curtailing the freedom to associate is subject to the closest scrutiny.' NAACP v. Alabama
    Search
  20. either the right to associate nor the right to participate in political activities is absolute.' CSC v. Letter
    Search
  21. To place respondent's constitutional claims in proper perspective, we repeat language used in Buckley v. Valeo
    Search
  22. which could be used to incur political debts from legislators who are aided by the contributions. See United States v. Automobile
    Search
  23. candidates from having that money used to support political candidates to whom they may be opposed. See United States v. CIO
    Search
  24. First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti
    Search
  25. U. S. 765 , 435 U. S. 788 , n. 26 (1978) (citations omitted). Likewise, in Buckley v. Valeo
    Search
  26. United States v. Automobile
    Search
  27. contributions and expenditures of corporations and labor unions is set forth in great detail in United States v. Automobile
    Search
  28. NLRB v. Jones
    Search
  29. legal and economic attributes of corporations and labor organizations warrants considerable deference, see Rostker v. Goldberg
    Search
  30. of the corporate structure require particularly Page 459 U. S. 210 careful regulation. See United States v. Morton
    Search
  31. as to the need for prophylactic measures where corruption is the evil feared. As we said in California Medical Assn. v. FEC
    Search
  32. and the appearance of corruption of elected representatives has long been recognized, First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti
    Search
  33. Page 459 U. S. 211 and similar organizations differently from individuals. California Medical Assn. v. FEC
    Search
  34. Respondent also asserts a claim of unconstitutional vagueness, relying on such additional cases as Connally v. General
    Search
  35. Grayned v. City
    Search
  36. and Smith v. California
    Search
  37. U. S. 147 (1959). We think the vagueness claim is adequately answered by the language quoted earlier from CSC v. Letter
    Search
  38. in toto, to people who would not be members under any reasonable interpretation of the statute. See Broadrick v. Oklahoma
    Search
  39. from the corporation's other assets. Pipefitters v. United
    Search
  40. States, 407 U. S. 385 , 407 U. S. 414 -417 (1972). See also Buckley v. Valeo
    Search
  41. Our decision in First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti
    Search
  42. Id. at 435 U. S. 788 , n. 26 (emphasis added). In addition, following its citation of Pipefitters v. United
    Search
  43. and United States v. CIO
    Search
  44. U.S. Supreme Court FEC v. National
    Search
  45. Federal Election Commission v. National
    Search
  46. and Schaumburg v. Citizens
    Search
  47. Bates v. Little
    Search
  48. CSC v. Letter
    Search
  49. See United States v. Automobile
    Search
  50. See United States v. CIO
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial