9780197821916 - money, politics, and the first amendment: fifty years of supreme court decisions and campaign finance reforms (16 resultados)
- Tapa blanda
Librería: Books From California, Simi Valley, CA, Estados Unidos de AmericaBooks From California
Contactar con el vendedorVendedor de 4 estrellasCondición: Usado - Bueno
EUR 19,48
Envío por EUR 4,38Se envía dentro de Estados Unidos de AmericaCantidad disponible: 7 disponibles
paperback. Condición: Very Good. Cover and edges may have some wear.
- Tapa blanda
Librería: Books From California, Simi Valley, CA, Estados Unidos de AmericaBooks From California
Contactar con el vendedorVendedor de 4 estrellasCondición: Usado - Excelente
EUR 19,48
Envío por EUR 4,38Se envía dentro de Estados Unidos de AmericaCantidad disponible: 4 disponibles
paperback. Condición: Fine.
- Tapa blanda
Librería: GreatBookPrices, Columbia, MD, Estados Unidos de AmericaGreatBookPrices
Contactar con el vendedorVendedor de 5 estrellasCondición: Nuevo
EUR 33,57
Envío por EUR 2,32Se envía dentro de Estados Unidos de AmericaCantidad disponible: Más de 20 disponibles
Condición: New.
- Más imágenes
- Tapa blanda
Librería: BargainBookStores, Grand Rapids, MI, Estados Unidos de AmericaBargainBookStores
Contactar con el vendedorVendedor de 5 estrellasCondición: Nuevo
EUR 35,96
Gastos de envío gratisSe envía dentro de Estados Unidos de AmericaCantidad disponible: 5 disponibles
Paperback or Softback. Condición: New. Money, Politics, and the First Amendment: Fifty Years of Supreme Court Decisions and Campaign Finance Reforms. Book.
- Tapa blanda
Librería: GreatBookPrices, Columbia, MD, Estados Unidos de AmericaGreatBookPrices
Contactar con el vendedorVendedor de 5 estrellasCondición: Usado - Como Nuevo
EUR 37,74
Envío por EUR 2,32Se envía dentro de Estados Unidos de AmericaCantidad disponible: Más de 20 disponibles
Condición: As New. Unread book in perfect condition.
- Más imágenes
- Tapa blanda
Librería: Rarewaves USA, OSWEGO, IL, Estados Unidos de AmericaRarewaves USA
Contactar con el vendedorVendedor de 5 estrellasCondición: Nuevo
EUR 42,69
Gastos de envío gratisSe envía dentro de Estados Unidos de AmericaCantidad disponible: Más de 20 disponibles
Paperback. Condición: New. Money in political campaigns is a subject of endless current interest and enormous consequence for American democracy. Beginning in 1976, in Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court established a framework for public campaign regulation that declared that money constitutes "speech" and that the only constit…utional basis upon which the government can regulate money was to prohibit corruption or the appearance of corruption. The Court then defined corruption narrowly and held that direct "contributions" to candidates could be limited on that basis but that "expenditures," by political candidates and others, could not. Over time as the role of money became more and more serious in politics the Court in a number of decisions seemed to be turning more willing to accept regulation. But in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the new conservative Supreme Court sharply turned against permitting regulation, including of corporations. Today that regime of nearly full protection for anyone spending virtually any amount of money for or against candidates and issues remains securely in place. The question, after a half century of this system, is whether this interpretation of the First Amendment is sound or not. If yes, then what are the justifications and what will be the consequences? If not, then what are alternative interpretations and what would the world be like under each one? The contributors, all scholars and experts in this area, give their interpretations and proposals.
- Más imágenes
- Tapa blanda
Librería: Rarewaves.com USA, London, LONDO, Reino UnidoRarewaves.com USA
Contactar con el vendedorVendedor de 5 estrellasCondición: Nuevo
EUR 50,72
Gastos de envío gratisSe envía de Reino Unido a Estados Unidos de AmericaCantidad disponible: Más de 20 disponibles
Paperback. Condición: New. Money in political campaigns is a subject of endless current interest and enormous consequence for American democracy. Beginning in 1976, in Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court established a framework for public campaign regulation that declared that money constitutes "speech" and that the only constit…utional basis upon which the government can regulate money was to prohibit corruption or the appearance of corruption. The Court then defined corruption narrowly and held that direct "contributions" to candidates could be limited on that basis but that "expenditures," by political candidates and others, could not. Over time as the role of money became more and more serious in politics the Court in a number of decisions seemed to be turning more willing to accept regulation. But in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the new conservative Supreme Court sharply turned against permitting regulation, including of corporations. Today that regime of nearly full protection for anyone spending virtually any amount of money for or against candidates and issues remains securely in place. The question, after a half century of this system, is whether this interpretation of the First Amendment is sound or not. If yes, then what are the justifications and what will be the consequences? If not, then what are alternative interpretations and what would the world be like under each one? The contributors, all scholars and experts in this area, give their interpretations and proposals.
- Tapa blanda
Librería: THE SAINT BOOKSTORE, Southport, Reino UnidoTHE SAINT BOOKSTORE
Contactar con el vendedorVendedor de 5 estrellasCondición: Nuevo
EUR 32,59
Envío por EUR 18,76Se envía de Reino Unido a Estados Unidos de AmericaCantidad disponible: 15 disponibles
Paperback / softback. Condición: New. New copy - Usually dispatched within 4 working days.
- Tapa blanda
Librería: GreatBookPricesUK, Woodford Green, Reino UnidoGreatBookPricesUK
Contactar con el vendedorVendedor de 5 estrellasCondición: Nuevo
EUR 44,11
Envío por EUR 17,58Se envía de Reino Unido a Estados Unidos de AmericaCantidad disponible: Más de 20 disponibles
Condición: New.
- Tapa blanda
Librería: GreatBookPricesUK, Woodford Green, Reino UnidoGreatBookPricesUK
Contactar con el vendedorVendedor de 5 estrellasCondición: Usado - Como Nuevo
EUR 45,17
Envío por EUR 17,58Se envía de Reino Unido a Estados Unidos de AmericaCantidad disponible: Más de 20 disponibles
Condición: As New. Unread book in perfect condition.
- Tapa blanda
Librería: Revaluation Books, Exeter, Reino UnidoRevaluation Books
Contactar con el vendedorVendedor de 5 estrellasCondición: Nuevo
EUR 50,51
Envío por EUR 14,65Se envía de Reino Unido a Estados Unidos de AmericaCantidad disponible: 2 disponibles
Paperback. Condición: Brand New. 488 pages. 6.14x0.97x9.21 inches. In Stock.
- Más imágenes
- Tapa blanda
Librería: Rarewaves USA United, OSWEGO, IL, Estados Unidos de AmericaRarewaves USA United
Contactar con el vendedorVendedor de 5 estrellasCondición: Nuevo
EUR 44,13
Envío por EUR 43,88Se envía dentro de Estados Unidos de AmericaCantidad disponible: Más de 20 disponibles
Paperback. Condición: New. Money in political campaigns is a subject of endless current interest and enormous consequence for American democracy. Beginning in 1976, in Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court established a framework for public campaign regulation that declared that money constitutes "speech" and that the only constit…utional basis upon which the government can regulate money was to prohibit corruption or the appearance of corruption. The Court then defined corruption narrowly and held that direct "contributions" to candidates could be limited on that basis but that "expenditures," by political candidates and others, could not. Over time as the role of money became more and more serious in politics the Court in a number of decisions seemed to be turning more willing to accept regulation. But in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the new conservative Supreme Court sharply turned against permitting regulation, including of corporations. Today that regime of nearly full protection for anyone spending virtually any amount of money for or against candidates and issues remains securely in place. The question, after a half century of this system, is whether this interpretation of the First Amendment is sound or not. If yes, then what are the justifications and what will be the consequences? If not, then what are alternative interpretations and what would the world be like under each one? The contributors, all scholars and experts in this area, give their interpretations and proposals.
- Más imágenes
- Tapa blanda
Librería: Rarewaves.com UK, London, Reino UnidoRarewaves.com UK
Contactar con el vendedorVendedor de 5 estrellasCondición: Nuevo
EUR 46,39
Envío por EUR 76,16Se envía de Reino Unido a Estados Unidos de AmericaCantidad disponible: Más de 20 disponibles
Paperback. Condición: New. Money in political campaigns is a subject of endless current interest and enormous consequence for American democracy. Beginning in 1976, in Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court established a framework for public campaign regulation that declared that money constitutes "speech" and that the only constit…utional basis upon which the government can regulate money was to prohibit corruption or the appearance of corruption. The Court then defined corruption narrowly and held that direct "contributions" to candidates could be limited on that basis but that "expenditures," by political candidates and others, could not. Over time as the role of money became more and more serious in politics the Court in a number of decisions seemed to be turning more willing to accept regulation. But in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the new conservative Supreme Court sharply turned against permitting regulation, including of corporations. Today that regime of nearly full protection for anyone spending virtually any amount of money for or against candidates and issues remains securely in place. The question, after a half century of this system, is whether this interpretation of the First Amendment is sound or not. If yes, then what are the justifications and what will be the consequences? If not, then what are alternative interpretations and what would the world be like under each one? The contributors, all scholars and experts in this area, give their interpretations and proposals.
- Tapa blanda
- Impresión bajo demanda
Librería: Brook Bookstore On Demand, Napoli, NA, ItaliaBrook Bookstore On Demand
Contactar con el vendedorVendedor de 5 estrellasCondición: Nuevo
EUR 28,07
Envío por EUR 6,80Se envía de Italia a Estados Unidos de AmericaCantidad disponible: Más de 20 disponibles
Condición: new. Questo è un articolo print on demand.
- Tapa blanda
- Impresión bajo demanda
Librería: Grand Eagle Retail, Bensenville, IL, Estados Unidos de AmericaGrand Eagle Retail
Contactar con el vendedorVendedor de 5 estrellasCondición: Nuevo
EUR 41,00
Gastos de envío gratisSe envía dentro de Estados Unidos de AmericaCantidad disponible: 1 disponibles
Paperback. Condición: new. Paperback. Money in political campaigns is a subject of endless current interest and enormous consequence for American democracy. Beginning in 1976, in Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court established a framework for public campaign regulation that declared that money constitutes "speech" and that the o…nly constitutional basis upon which the government can regulate money was to prohibit corruption or the appearance of corruption. The Court then defined corruptionnarrowly and held that direct "contributions" to candidates could be limited on that basis but that "expenditures," by political candidates and others, could not. Over time as the role of money became more andmore serious in politics the Court in a number of decisions seemed to be turning more willing to accept regulation. But in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the new conservative Supreme Court sharply turned against permitting regulation, including of corporations. Today that regime of nearly full protection for anyone spending virtually any amount of money for or against candidates and issues remains securely in place. The question, after a halfcentury of this system, is whether this interpretation of the First Amendment is sound or not. If yes, then what are the justifications and what will be the consequences? If not, then what are alternativeinterpretations and what would the world be like under each one? The contributors, all scholars and experts in this area, give their interpretations and proposals. This item is printed on demand. Shipping may be from multiple locations in the US or from the UK, depending on stock availability.
- Tapa blanda
- Impresión bajo demanda
Librería: CitiRetail, Stevenage, Reino UnidoCitiRetail
Contactar con el vendedorVendedor de 5 estrellasCondición: Nuevo
EUR 49,47
Envío por EUR 43,35Se envía de Reino Unido a Estados Unidos de AmericaCantidad disponible: 1 disponibles
Paperback. Condición: new. Paperback. Money in political campaigns is a subject of endless current interest and enormous consequence for American democracy. Beginning in 1976, in Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court established a framework for public campaign regulation that declared that money constitutes "speech" and that the o…nly constitutional basis upon which the government can regulate money was to prohibit corruption or the appearance of corruption. The Court then defined corruptionnarrowly and held that direct "contributions" to candidates could be limited on that basis but that "expenditures," by political candidates and others, could not. Over time as the role of money became more andmore serious in politics the Court in a number of decisions seemed to be turning more willing to accept regulation. But in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the new conservative Supreme Court sharply turned against permitting regulation, including of corporations.Today that regime of nearly full protection for anyone spending virtually any amount of money for or against candidates and issues remains securely in place. The question, after a halfcentury of this system, is whether this interpretation of the First Amendment is sound or not. If yes, then what are the justifications and what will be the consequences? If not, then what are alternativeinterpretations and what would the world be like under each one? The contributors, all scholars and experts in this area, give their interpretations and proposals. This item is printed on demand. Shipping may be from our UK warehouse or from our Australian or US warehouses, depending on stock availability.
