We found a match
Your institution may have access to this item. Find your institution then sign in to continue.
- Title
STATES MUST PROTECT ISSUE ADVOCACY IN A POST-CITIZENS UNITED WORLD.
- Authors
Manjarrez, Amanda
- Abstract
In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court held that the government may not enact a law that limits political speech on the basis of the speaker’s corporate identity unless the law serves to prevent quid pro quo corruption. This decision transformed the way corporations spend money to influence elections and triggered nationwide reform of campaign finance Urns, which have, the potential to chill effective issue advocacy. Although Citizens United established greater free speech protections for corporations and nonprofit organizations, nonprofit 501(c)(3) organizations are still prohibited from supporting or opposing a candidate for political office. Because these organizations are distinct from the types of 501(c)(4) nonprofits organizations at issue in Citizens United, state lawmakers should protect important issue speech by categorically exempting 501(c)(3) organizations from campaign finance regulations.
- Subjects
UNITED States; CITIZENS United v. Federal Election Commission; CORPORATE speech; FREEDOM of speech; CAMPAIGN funds; NONPROFIT organizations -- Political activity -- Law &; legislation; STATE laws; EXEMPTION (Law); POLITICAL participation; CORPORATE political activity; ACTIONS &; defenses (Law)
- Publication
Lewis & Clark Law Review, 2017, Vol 21, Issue 1, p219
- ISSN
1557-6582
- Publication type
Article