Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Fec Vs. Mass. Cit. for Life

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Dec 15, 1986

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

60 entries 5 linked 55 unlinked
Show
  1. Naacp Vs. Button US Supreme Court · Jan 14, 1963
  2. Palko Vs. Connecticut US Supreme Court · Dec 06, 1937
  3. United States Vs. Cio US Supreme Court · Jun 21, 1948
  4. Buckley Vs. Valeo US Supreme Court · Jan 30, 1976
    Relied / Followed
  5. Speiser Vs. Randall US Supreme Court · Jun 30, 1958
  6. FEC v. Mass
    Search
  7. Cit. for Life - 479 U.S. 238 (1986) U.S. Supreme Court FEC v. Mass
    Search
  8. Cit. for Life, 479 U.S. 238 (1986) Federal Election Commission v. Massachusetts
    Search
  9. exhaustively recounted the legislative history of the predecessors of this section in prior decisions. See Pipefitters v. United
    Search
  10. United States v. Automobile
    Search
  11. Cong.Rec. 6436-6437 (1947). United States v. CIO
    Search
  12. does not constitute express advocacy. The argument relies on the portion of Buckley v. Valeo
    Search
  13. Buckley, 424 U.S. at 424 U. S. 39 (quoting Williams v. Rhodes
    Search
  14. U. S. 23 , 393 U. S. 32 (1968)). See also FEC v. National
    Search
  15. include those persons who have merely contributed to or indicated support for the organization in the past. See FEC v. National
    Search
  16. as an infringement on First Amendment activities. In Freedman v. Maryland
    Search
  17. Id. at 380 U. S. 59 . Page 479 U. S. 256 Speiser v. Randall
    Search
  18. a statutory provision burdens First Amendment rights, it must be justified by a compelling state interest. Williams v. Rhodes
    Search
  19. Abrams v. United
    Search
  20. California Medical Assn. v. FEC
    Search
  21. MCFL concedes that, under this Court's decision in FEC v. National
    Search
  22. some lower courts to fall within the exemption, such as the distribution of a letter soliciting subscriptions, see FEC v. Phillips
    Search
  23. Publishing Co., 517 F.Supp. 1308, 1313 (DC 1981), or the dissemination of publicity, see Reader's Digest Assn. v. FEC
    Search
  24. In Buckley v. Valeo
    Search
  25. The Commission relies on Regan v. Taxation
    Search
  26. an instrumental role. As Justice Brandeis stated in his discussion of political speech in his concurrence in Whitney v. California
    Search
  27. to which we have said we owe considerable deference. FEC v. National
    Search
  28. Right to Work Committee, 459 U. S. 197 , 459 U. S. 209 (1982) (quoting NLRB v. Jones
    Search
  29. opportunity for political speech that we invalidated in the state referendum context in First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti
    Search
  30. the Court's discussion of the Act's disclosure requirements may be read as moving away from the teaching of Buckley v. Valeo
    Search
  31. the organizational and solicitation restrictions are not invariably an insurmountable burden on speech, see, e.g., FEC v. National
    Search
  32. whom JUSTICE WHITE, JUSTICE BLACKMUN, and JUSTICE STEVENS join, concurring in part and dissenting in part. In FEC v. National
    Search
  33. First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti
    Search
  34. Pipefitters v. United
    Search
  35. FEC v. National
    Search
  36. these dangers sufficient to justify restrictions on corporate political activity. See also California Medical Assn. v. FEC
    Search
  37. for various regulations. Citizens Against Rent Control v. Berkeley
    Search
  38. JUSTICE WHITE, while joining THE CHIEF JUSTICE's opinion, adheres to his dissenting views expressed in Buckley v. Valeo
    Search
  39. U. S. 1 (1976), First National Bank v. Bellotti
    Search
  40. U. S. 765 (1978), and FEC v. National
    Search
  41. rather one in which the Court rejects the judgment of Congress that such regulation is appropriate. Cf. United States v. CIO
    Search
  42. found unconstitutional a regulation that restricted only corporate political activity. First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti
    Search
  43. U. S. 765 (1978). As we noted in FEC v. National
    Search
  44. U.S. Supreme Court FEC v. Mass
    Search
  45. Federal Election Commission v. Massachusetts
    Search
  46. See Pipefitters v. United
    Search
  47. of Buckley v. Valeo
    Search
  48. Williams v. Rhodes
    Search
  49. See FEC v. National
    Search
  50. In Freedman v. Maryland
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial