08-09-2017, 07:49 AM
|
|
|
It's 42
Industry Role:
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Global
Posts: 18,083
|
https://diplomacy.state.gov/discover...ues/170606.htm
Quote:
|
The Department?s mission is to shape and sustain a peaceful, prosperous, just, and democratic world and foster conditions for stability and progress for the benefit of the American people and people everywhere. This mission is shared with the USAID, ensuring we have a common path forward in partnership as we invest in the shared security and prosperity that will ultimately better prepare us for the challenges of tomorrow.
|
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
CITIZENS UNITED, APPELLANT v. FEDERAL
ELECTION COMMISSION
on appeal from the united states district court for the district of columbia
[January 21, 2010]
Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court.
Quote:
Modern day movies, television comedies, or skits on Youtube.com might portray public officials or public policies in unflattering ways. Yet if a covered transmission during the blackout period creates the background for candidate endorsement or opposition, a felony occurs solely because a corporation, other than an exempt media corporation, has made the ?purchase, payment, distribution, loan, advance, deposit, or gift of money or anything of value? in order to engage in political speech. 2 U. S. C. §431(9)(A)(i). Speech would be suppressed in the realm where its necessity is most evident: in the public dialogue preceding a real election. Governments are often hostile to speech, but under our law and our tradition it seems stranger than fiction for our Government to make this political speech a crime. Yet this is the statute?s purpose and design.
Some members of the public might consider Hillary to be insightful and instructive; some might find it to be neither high art nor a fair discussion on how to set the Nation?s course; still others simply might suspend judgment on these points but decide to think more about issues and candidates. Those choices and assessments, however, are not for the Government to make. ?The First Amendment underwrites the freedom to experiment and to create in the realm of thought and speech. Citizens must be free to use new forms, and new forums, for the expression of ideas. The civic discourse belongs to the people, and the Government may not prescribe the means used to conduct it.? McConnell , supra , at 341 (opinion of Kennedy, J. ).
The judgment of the District Court is reversed with respect to the constitutionality of 2 U. S. C. §441b?s restrictions on corporate independent expenditures. The judgment is affirmed with respect to BCRA?s disclaimer and disclosure requirements. The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
|
|
|
|