“Express advocacy” comes up in Akins v. Federal Election Commission: Supreme Court precedent indicates that for a communication to constitute “express advocacy,” it must “in express terms advocate the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate for federal office” by using words “such as ‘vote for,’ ‘elect,’ ‘support,’ ‘cast your ballot for,’ ‘Smith for Congress,’ ‘vote against,’ […]
Category: Const Law Issues
Opinion in Cao v. Federal Election Commission
The opinion in Cao v. Federal Election Commission has been announced and it’s available here.
What are some options for limited disclosure?
USAT examines disclosure and corporate campaign spending here.