9780197821916 - money, politics, and the first amendment: fifty years of supreme court decisions and campaign finance reforms (16 risultati)
- Brossura
Da: Books From California, Simi Valley, CA, U.S.A.Books From California
Contatta il venditoreVenditore con 4 stelleCondizione: Usato - Molto buono
EUR 19,03
EUR 4,28 spedizioneSpedito in U.S.A.Quantità: 7 disponibili
paperback. Condizione: Very Good. Cover and edges may have some wear.
- Brossura
Da: Books From California, Simi Valley, CA, U.S.A.Books From California
Contatta il venditoreVenditore con 4 stelleCondizione: Usato - Ottimo
EUR 19,03
EUR 4,28 spedizioneSpedito in U.S.A.Quantità: 4 disponibili
paperback. Condizione: Fine.
- Brossura
Da: GreatBookPrices, Columbia, MD, U.S.A.GreatBookPrices
Contatta il venditoreVenditore con 5 stelleCondizione: Nuovo
EUR 32,78
EUR 2,26 spedizioneSpedito in U.S.A.Quantità: Più di 20 disponibili
Condizione: New.
- Brossura
Da: BargainBookStores, Grand Rapids, MI, U.S.A.BargainBookStores
Contatta il venditoreVenditore con 5 stelleCondizione: Nuovo
EUR 35,12
Spedizione gratuitaSpedito in U.S.A.Quantità: 5 disponibili
Paperback or Softback. Condizione: New. Money, Politics, and the First Amendment: Fifty Years of Supreme Court Decisions and Campaign Finance Reforms. Book.
- Brossura
Da: GreatBookPrices, Columbia, MD, U.S.A.GreatBookPrices
Contatta il venditoreVenditore con 5 stelleCondizione: Usato - Come nuovo
EUR 36,85
EUR 2,26 spedizioneSpedito in U.S.A.Quantità: Più di 20 disponibili
Condizione: As New. Unread book in perfect condition.
- Brossura
Da: Rarewaves USA, HEBRON, KY, U.S.A.Rarewaves USA
Contatta il venditoreVenditore con 5 stelleCondizione: Nuovo
EUR 41,69
Spedizione gratuitaSpedito in U.S.A.Quantità: Più di 20 disponibili
Paperback. Condizione: 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 consti…tutional 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.
- Brossura
Da: Rarewaves.com USA, London, LONDO, Regno UnitoRarewaves.com USA
Contatta il venditoreVenditore con 5 stelleCondizione: Nuovo
EUR 49,44
Spedizione gratuitaSpedito da Regno Unito a U.S.A.Quantità: Più di 20 disponibili
Paperback. Condizione: 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 consti…tutional 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.
- Brossura
Da: THE SAINT BOOKSTORE, Southport, Regno UnitoTHE SAINT BOOKSTORE
Contatta il venditoreVenditore con 5 stelleCondizione: Nuovo
EUR 32,50
EUR 18,71 spedizioneSpedito da Regno Unito a U.S.A.Quantità: 15 disponibili
Paperback / softback. Condizione: New. New copy - Usually dispatched within 4 working days.
- Brossura
Da: GreatBookPricesUK, Woodford Green, Regno UnitoGreatBookPricesUK
Contatta il venditoreVenditore con 5 stelleCondizione: Nuovo
EUR 43,83
EUR 17,53 spedizioneSpedito da Regno Unito a U.S.A.Quantità: Più di 20 disponibili
Condizione: New.
- Brossura
Da: GreatBookPricesUK, Woodford Green, Regno UnitoGreatBookPricesUK
Contatta il venditoreVenditore con 5 stelleCondizione: Usato - Come nuovo
EUR 43,92
EUR 17,53 spedizioneSpedito da Regno Unito a U.S.A.Quantità: Più di 20 disponibili
Condizione: As New. Unread book in perfect condition.
- Brossura
Da: Revaluation Books, Exeter, Regno UnitoRevaluation Books
Contatta il venditoreVenditore con 5 stelleCondizione: Nuovo
EUR 49,23
EUR 14,61 spedizioneSpedito da Regno Unito a U.S.A.Quantità: 2 disponibili
Paperback. Condizione: Brand New. 488 pages. 6.14x0.97x9.21 inches. In Stock.
- Brossura
Da: Rarewaves USA United, HEBRON, KY, U.S.A.Rarewaves USA United
Contatta il venditoreVenditore con 5 stelleCondizione: Nuovo
EUR 43,84
EUR 42,85 spedizioneSpedito in U.S.A.Quantità: Più di 20 disponibili
Paperback. Condizione: 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 consti…tutional 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.
- Brossura
Da: Rarewaves.com UK, London, Regno UnitoRarewaves.com UK
Contatta il venditoreVenditore con 5 stelleCondizione: Nuovo
EUR 45,99
EUR 75,97 spedizioneSpedito da Regno Unito a U.S.A.Quantità: Più di 20 disponibili
Paperback. Condizione: 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 consti…tutional 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.
- Brossura
- Print on Demand
Da: Brook Bookstore On Demand, Napoli, NA, ItaliaBrook Bookstore On Demand
Contatta il venditoreVenditore con 5 stelleCondizione: Nuovo
EUR 28,00
EUR 6,80 spedizioneSpedito da Italia a U.S.A.Quantità: Più di 20 disponibili
Condizione: new. Questo è un articolo print on demand.
- Brossura
- Print on Demand
Da: Grand Eagle Retail, Bensenville, IL, U.S.A.Grand Eagle Retail
Contatta il venditoreVenditore con 5 stelleCondizione: Nuovo
EUR 40,04
Spedizione gratuitaSpedito in U.S.A.Quantità: 1 disponibili
Paperback. Condizione: 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…only 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.
- Brossura
- Print on Demand
Da: CitiRetail, Stevenage, Regno UnitoCitiRetail
Contatta il venditoreVenditore con 5 stelleCondizione: Nuovo
EUR 49,35
EUR 43,24 spedizioneSpedito da Regno Unito a U.S.A.Quantità: 1 disponibili
Paperback. Condizione: 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…only 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.
