Free Speech

Paragraph: 34 - In Buckley, we soundly rejected a cap on a candidate's expenditure of personal funds to finance campaign speech. We held that  a N108* "candidate . . . has a First Amendment right to engage in the discussion of public issues and vigorously and tirelessly to advocate his own election" and that a cap on personal expenditures imposes "a substantial," "clea[r]," and "direc[t]" restraint on that right.

Notes:

• N108* / quote / endorsement / Q0252 /

Preferred Terms:

• (why is) Expenditures as Speech

Phrase match: finance campaign speech. We held that

Source: http://freespeech.iath.virginia.edu/exist-speech/cocoon/freespeech/FOS_newSTerms_One?doc=/db/fos_all/federal/SC/2000s/20080626.554.US.724.xml&keyword1=speech&wordsBefore=2&wordsAfter=3#m1

Search time: 2017-11-10 14:59:38 Searcher: clm6u Editor: ars9ef tcs9pk Segmenter: ars9ef tcs9pk

Paragraph: 121 - Enhancing the speech of the millionaire's opponent, far from contravening the First Amendment, actually advances its core principles. If only one candidate can make   himself heard, the voter's ability to make an informed choice is impaired.

Notes:

Preferred Terms:

• (reg) Millionaire's Amendment

Phrase match: Enhancing the speech of the millionaire

Source: http://freespeech.iath.virginia.edu/exist-speech/cocoon/freespeech/FOS_newSTerms_One?doc=/db/fos_all/federal/SC/2000s/20080626.554.US.724.xml&keyword1=speech&wordsBefore=2&wordsAfter=3#m1

Search time: 2017-11-10 14:59:38 Searcher: clm6u Editor: ars9ef tcs9pk Segmenter: ars9ef tcs9pk