1、Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 14 (1976) (quoting Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 4841(1957).Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724, 730 (1974).2Congressional Research Service The Library of CongressCRS Report for CongressReceived through the CRS WebOrder Code RS20024January 21, 1999State Regulation of t
2、he Initiative Process: Buckley v. American Constitutional LawFoundation, Inc., et al.(name redacted)Legislative AttorneyAmerican Law DivisionSummaryWhile the authority to regulate political expression is sharply circumscribed by theConstitution, states traditionally have been granted significant lee
3、way in regulating theelectoral process for the sake of efficiency and veracity. Due to an increase in stateattempts to regulate petition initiatives, these two divergent bodies of law have given riseto a great deal of confusion as to the point at which state regulation of the electoralprocess become
4、s violative of First Amendment freedoms. The Supreme Court addressedthis conflict recently in Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation, Inc., etal.,clarifying the debate by analyzing various provisions of Colorado laws regulatinginitiative petitions. It is a well established proposition tha
升级VIP 