BIGLY, RIGLY, FBI DIRECTOR, JAMES COMEY'S, ELECTIONEERING, LESS THAN 60 DAYS FROM A GENERAL ELECTION, IS A VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW, AND THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, FIRST AMENDMENT! WHAT SHOULD THE PUNISHMENT BE FOR TRYING TO "THROW" THE 2016 ELECTIONS TO THE REPUBLICAN NOMINEE, DONALD TRUMP, BY BRINGING UP SPURIOUS ALLEGATIONS WITH NO EVIDENCE OR PROOF OF COMPLICATIONS IN THE JULY 2016 DISMISSAL OF ANY FURTHER INVESTIGATION, DUE TO THE FACT THAT, HILLARY CLINTON, LONG DOGGED BY REPUBLICANS, FOR 25 YEARS, HAD ANY "INTENT" TO INJURY THE UNITED STATES, OR TO GIVE "ADVANTAGE" TO ANY FOREIGN STATE . . . COMEY ON THE OTHER HAND, IS GUILTY OF VIOLATOIN OF FEDERAL STATUTE AND CONSTITUTIONAL CIVIL RIGHTS, ACTING UNDER, "BIG TIME" COLOR OF LAW, DENYING FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE, HILLARY CLINTON'S, CIVIL RIGHTS, BY A FEDERAL OFFICIAL, WHO UNDER THE "HATCH ACT OF 1939" WHICH IS AN OFFICIAL ACT TO PREVENT PERNICIOUS POLITICAL ACTIVITIES, IS A UNITED STATES FEDERAL LAW WHOSE MAIN PROVISION "PROHBITS" EMPLOYEES OFTHE EXECUTIVE BRANCH, WHICH THE FBI IS, OFTHE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, EXCEPT FOR THE PRESIDENT, VICE PRESIDENT, AND CERTAIN HIGH LEVEL OFFICIALS FROM ENGAGING IN CERTAIN FORMS OF POLITICAL ACTIVITIES . . . FEDERAL LAW PROHIBITS, ANY ELECTIONEERING, WITHIN, 30 DAYS OF A PRIMARY ELECTION, AND 60 DAYS OF A GENERAL ELECTION--HEILLO--SO, IT IS COMEY, WHO IS THE LAW BREAKER, NOT HILLARY. SOME WOULD SAY, WE DON'T KNOW THE "INTENT" OF THE FBI DIRECTOR, BUT CLEARLY FROM THE SHOCKED REACTION, BY LONG TERM CONGRESS MEMBERS, HIS ACTIONS BEWILDERED, EVERYONE, INCLUDING FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE, HARRY REID OF NEVADA. COMEY WAS APPOINTED TO A 10 YEAR TERM AS DIRECTOR OF THE FBI; HOWEVER, I AM SURE, AS IN THE CASE OF OTHER FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, HE IS SUBJECT TO THE LAW, AND GOVERNMENT IMMUNITY, IS ONLY GRANTED, TO THOSE WHO FOLLOW, WELL ESTABLISHED LAW, SUCH AS THE 240 YEAR OLD U.S. CONSTITUTION, AND DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, POLICY, ANOTHER REQUISIT ELEMENT OF BEING IMMUNE FROM PROSECUTION, AND COMEY DID NEITHER, AND IS GUILTY OF ELECTIONEERING, SEEING THAT THE CROSS-OVER, BETWEEN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH AND THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH, REPORTING, UNNECESSARY INFORMATION, THAT HAD NOT EVEN BEEN VETTED SO TO SAY BY THE DEPARTMENT IN AN UNRELATED CASE, INVOLVING "ESTRANGED" HUSBAND OF A TOP CLINTON AID, HUMA ABEDIN, WHO CLAIMS NO KNOWLEDGE OF HOW THE EMAILS GOT ON HER HUSBAND'S PRIVATE COMPUTER, HINT, HINT, HINT, HAVING TURNED OVER ALL MATERIALS TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND THE FBI, MONTHS AGO, SO, BEING THE CONSPIRACY LEADER OF THE BLOGGING WORLD, I WOULD SUSPECT, THAT, WEINER, VINDICTIVE SPOUSE, OF HUMA, ENGAGED IN A HEATED DIVORCE BATTLE, MAY HAVE EVEN, TRANSFERED, HUMA'S COMMUNICATIONS WITH CLINTON, FROM HER COMPUTER TO HIS, BEING A LOGICAL AND RATIONAL EXPLANATION FOR THE INFORMATION SHOWING UP, ON A HUSBAND, WHO MAY WANT TO HURT HIS WIFE, BY GOING AFTER CLINTON, EVEN WITH HUMA, DROPPING OFF THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL, AND LIKE SOME VINDICTIVE SURROGATE, SORT OF SON-IN-LAW OF CLINTONS, TRIED TO PAY BACK, CLINTON, WHO FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES, HAS CONSIDERED, HUMA ABEDIN, AN AID SINCE CLINTON WAS IN THE WHITE HOUSE THE FIRST TIME, WITH A RELATIONSHIP, SPANNING, DECADES, IT WOULD NOT BE UNHEARD OF, FOR SOMETHING LIKE THIS TO HAPPEN, GETTING BACK AT CLINTON, WHO MAY HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN ENCOURAGING ABEDIN, TO DUMP, THE WEINER, LEADER OF THE WEINER CLUB, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE TRUMP! PARTY LINES, SOMETIMES DON'T CUT AS DEEP AS THE LINES IN THE "BATTLE OF THE SEXES!" THE NEW TESTAMENT STATES, THAT ANYONE SETTING A SNARE OR TRAP FOR SOMEONE, IS LIKELY TO FALL IN THAT TRAP THEMSELVES! PROSECUTE FBI DIRECTOR JAMES COMEY FOR ELECTIONEERING! CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS BIG TIME!

Citizens United v. FEC

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  (Redirected from Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission)

Jump to: navigation, search

"Citizens United" redirects here. For the political organization, see Citizens United (organization). For other uses, see Citizens United (disambiguation).

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 24, 2009 Reargued September 9, 2009 Decided January 21, 2010
Full case name	Citizens United, Appellant v. Federal Election Commission
Docket nos.	08-205
Citations	558 U.S. 310 (more) 130 S.Ct. 876
Argument	Oral argument
Reargument	Reargument
Opinion announcement	Opinion announcement
Prior history	denied appellants motion for a preliminary injunction 530 F. Supp. 2d 274 (D.D.C. 2008)[1] probable jurisdiction noted 128 S. Ct. 1471 (2008).
Holding
The Freedom of the Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the government from restricting independent political expenditures by a nonprofit corporation. And the provision of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act prohibiting unions, corporations and not-for-profit organizations from broadcasting electioneering communications within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary election violates the clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. United States District Court for the District of Columbia reversed.
Court membership
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Associate Justices John P. Stevens · Antonin Scalia Anthony Kennedy · Clarence Thomas Ruth Bader Ginsburg · Stephen Breyer Samuel Alito · Sonia Sotomayor
Case opinions
Majority	Kennedy, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Alito; Thomas (all but Part IV); Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor (only as to Part IV)
Concurrence	Roberts, joined by Alito
Concurrence	Scalia, joined by Alito; Thomas (in part)
Concur/dissent	Stevens, joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor
Concur/dissent	Thomas
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. I, Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act
This case overturned a previous ruling or rulings
McConnell v. FEC (in part)

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is a U.S. constitutional law and corporate law case dealing with the regulation of campaign spending by organizations. The United States Supreme Court held (5–4) that freedom of speech prohibited the government from restricting independent political expenditures by a nonprofit corporation. The principles articulated by the Supreme Court in the case have also been extended to for-profit corporations, labor unions and other associations.^[2][3]
In the case, the conservative non-profit organization Citizens United wanted to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton and to advertise the film during television broadcasts shortly before the 2008 Democratic primary election in which Clinton was running for U.S. President. This would violate a federal statute prohibiting certain electioneering communications near an election. The court found the provisions of the law that prohibited corporations and unions from making such electioneering communications to conflict with the U.S. Constitution.
The court, however, upheld requirements for public disclosure by sponsors of advertisements. The case did not affect the federal ban on direct contributions from corporations or unions to candidate campaigns or political parties.

Contents

 [hide]