Pipefitters v. United States
Supreme Court Cases
407 U.S. 385 (1972)
Related Cases
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION v. CRUZ
Decided:
During his 2018 Senate reelection campaign and consistent with federal law, Ted Cruz loaned $260,000 to his campaign committee, Ted Cruz for Senate.
THOMPSON v. HEBDON
Decided:
The Supreme Court vacated an appellate court judgment and asked it to reconsider whether Alaska’s political contribution limits were consistent with First Amendment precedents.
WILLIAMS-YULEE v. THE FLORIDA BAR
Decided:
Do state laws that prohibit judges and judicial candidates from personally soliciting funds for their campaigns violate the First Amendment?
McCUTCHEON v. FEC
Decided:
Does limiting the total amount an individual can donate to all federal candidates, parties, and PACs over a two-year period violate the First Amendment right to free speech?
AMERICAN TRADITION PARTNERSHIP, INC. v. BULLOCK
Decided:
The Supreme Court reversed the Montana Supreme Court's decision that the broad free speech protections given to corporations in Citizens United v. FEC do not apply to Montana's campaign finance laws.
ARIZONA FREE ENTERPRISE CLUB'S FREEDOM CLUB PAC v. BENNETT
Decided:
The Supreme Court found that Arizona's Clean Elections Act placed a burden on groups making protected independent expenditures by forcing them to choose between speech and campaign funds.
CITIZENS UNITED v. FEC
Decided:
Should a feature length documentary about a candidate for political office be treated like an advertisements and therefore be subject to regulation under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act?
DAVIS v. FEC
Decided:
Does the Millionaire's Amendment to the 2002 campaign finance law, which raises the contribution limit for those running against a self-financed candidate, violate free speech clause of the First Amendment and the equal protection principle of the Fifth Amendment?
FEC v. WISCONSIN RIGHT TO LIFE
Decided:
Whether the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Acts ban on election season campaign ads by corporations violates the First Amendment.
RANDALL v. SORRELL
Decided:
Do expenditure limits for political candidates violate the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech? And whether Vermont's contribution limits, which are the lowest in the country, fall below an acceptable constitutional threshold and should be struck down?
WISCONSIN RIGHT TO LIFE v. FEC
Decided:
Whether the three-judge district court correctly dismissed appellant's as-applied constitutional challenge to the federal prohibition on the use of corporate treasury funds to finance "electioneering communications."
MCCONNELL v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
Decided:
Whether prohibiting national party committees from raising or spending unregulated "soft money" (donations not subject to federal limits) and banning federal candidates from soliciting such funds violated the First Amendment.
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION v. CHRISTINE BEAUMONT et al.
Decided:
Whether certain advocacy groups can contribute to candidates campaigns. Currently, only individuals, political action committees, political parties and other campaign committees can give to candidates. More specifically, the issue is whether North Carolina Right to Life and other nonprofit advocacy corporations groups that raise money not through business ventures but through donations from supporters can make campaign contributions. Such groups have neither business interests nor shareholders.
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION v. COLORADO REPUBLICAN FEDERAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE
Decided:
Whether the Party Expenditure Provision of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 violates a political party's First Amendment rights by limiting the amount of money a party may spend in coordination with its congressional candidates.
NIXON v. SHRINK MISSOURI GOVERNMENT PAC
Decided:
Whether state campaign finance contribution limits lower than federal limits upheld in Buckley v. Valeo (1976) violated the First and Fourteenth Amendment rights of contributors and candidates.
COLORADO REPUBLICAN FEDERAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE AND DOUGLAS JONES, TREASURER v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
Decided:
Whether campaign spending limits constitutionally can be applied against a state committee of a political party whose spending was not coordinated with a candidate.
AUSTIN, MICHIGAN SECRETARY OF STATE, et al. v. MICHIGAN STATE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
Decided:
Did the Michigan Campaign Finance Act violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments?
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION et al. v. NATIONAL RIGHT TO WORK COMMITTEE et al.
Decided:
Whether provisions of the 1971 Federal Election Campaign Act restricting union and corporation's funds for political purposes to members of the corporation violate the First Amendment's guarantees of associational rights.
COMMON CAUSE v. SCHMITT
Decided:
CITIZENS AGAINST RENT CONTROL/COALITION FOR FAIR HOUSING et al. v. CITY OF BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA, et al.
Decided:
Whether a $250 limit on contributions to committees in support of or opposition to ballot initiatives in California violated First Amendment guarantees of association and free speech.
CALIFORNIA MEDICAL ASSOCIATION et al. v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION et al.
Decided:
Whether a provision of the 1971 Federal Elections Campaign Act prohibiting individual contributions of over $5000 to multicandidate political committees violated First Amendment guarantees of speech and associational freedoms.
FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF BOSTON et al. v. BELLOTTI, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MASSACHUSETTS
Decided:
Whether a state criminal statute that forbids certain expenditures by banks and business corporations for the purpose of influencing the vote on referendum proposals violates the First Amendment.
BUCKLEY v. VALEO
Decided:
Do the Federal Election Campaign Act’s limits on electoral expenditures violate the 1st Amendment?
CORT et al. v. ASH
Decided:
BROADRICK v. OKLAHOMA
Decided:
UNITED STATES v. Auto Workers
Decided:
Whether a labor union's use of general treasury funds to sponsor television commercials promoting federal candidates constituted an illegal "expenditure" under the law, and if applying this prohibition to unions was constitutional.