Homework Help is Here – Start Your Trial Now!
Social Science
Political Science
th t

th t

icon
Related questions
Question
Help with this
for political purposes. The Michigan State Chamber of Commerce 3. In June 1985, the Michigan Chamber of Commerce wanted to run a (C) Draw a conclusion about the reasons for that difference. Campaign Finance Act prohibited the use of general treasury funds from its general treasury to pay for the ad. However, the Michigan State vacant seat in the Michigan House of Representatives. Although the newspaper ad in support of a candidate in the special election to fill a (A) Identify the percent of ad spending in the top three states. organization had a separate political fund, it wanted to use money (D) Explain how the data in the chart reflects a principle of electoral (B) Describe the difference in spending between that in the top three mpaign. que the states and the top ten. ng became ...in ns United Je have politics. ection that it uality SCOTUS Comparison oportion entities ons lack eech chould not be bound by the Michigan law, which it argued suppressed che Chamber's constitutional rights. A Michigan court upheld the application of the law; an appeals court reversed that decision, and the case came before the U.S. Supreme Court. In 1990, in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, the Supreme Court once again reversed, upholding the Michigan law that prohibited corporations from spending general treasury funds for political purposes. The Court disagreed with the designation of the organization, noting that most of its members were corporations. It reasoned further that since corporations are allowed to make political expenditures through their separate political funds, their constitutional rights were not unduly burdened. 21,2012 was a “nonprofit ideological corporation" and, as such, argued that Citizens scribed cted (A) Identify a similarity between Austin v. Michigan (1990) and Citizens United v. FEC (2010). (B) Given the similarity identified in part A, explain why Citizens Onited v. FEC led to a different holding than the holding in Austin v. Michigan. to minimize the effect of the ruling.
Transcribed Image Text:for political purposes. The Michigan State Chamber of Commerce 3. In June 1985, the Michigan Chamber of Commerce wanted to run a (C) Draw a conclusion about the reasons for that difference. Campaign Finance Act prohibited the use of general treasury funds from its general treasury to pay for the ad. However, the Michigan State vacant seat in the Michigan House of Representatives. Although the newspaper ad in support of a candidate in the special election to fill a (A) Identify the percent of ad spending in the top three states. organization had a separate political fund, it wanted to use money (D) Explain how the data in the chart reflects a principle of electoral (B) Describe the difference in spending between that in the top three mpaign. que the states and the top ten. ng became ...in ns United Je have politics. ection that it uality SCOTUS Comparison oportion entities ons lack eech chould not be bound by the Michigan law, which it argued suppressed che Chamber's constitutional rights. A Michigan court upheld the application of the law; an appeals court reversed that decision, and the case came before the U.S. Supreme Court. In 1990, in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, the Supreme Court once again reversed, upholding the Michigan law that prohibited corporations from spending general treasury funds for political purposes. The Court disagreed with the designation of the organization, noting that most of its members were corporations. It reasoned further that since corporations are allowed to make political expenditures through their separate political funds, their constitutional rights were not unduly burdened. 21,2012 was a “nonprofit ideological corporation" and, as such, argued that Citizens scribed cted (A) Identify a similarity between Austin v. Michigan (1990) and Citizens United v. FEC (2010). (B) Given the similarity identified in part A, explain why Citizens Onited v. FEC led to a different holding than the holding in Austin v. Michigan. to minimize the effect of the ruling.
Expert Solution
trending now

Trending now

This is a popular solution!

steps

Step by step

Solved in 3 steps

SEE SOLUTIONCheck out a sample Q&A here
Blurred answer