Talk:Buckley v. Valeo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.

I noticed that when I inserted the citation to the Wealth primary, I got double spaces where I meant to have single spaces. Could not fix it. 01:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Magic words

I propose that mention of the concept of "magic words" be added to this article, seeing as they originated in Buckley. I'm going to suggest my rewritten prose here, first, instead of rushing into an edit as I did earlier tonight:

In the context of political advertising and campaign finance, the phrase "magic words" refers to a series of phrases, enumerated by the court in Buckley, that would constitute "express words of advocacy of election or defeat" when used in regard to a candidate for office. The specific phrases mentioned in the decision ("vote for," "elect," "support," "cast your ballot for," "Smith for Congress," "vote against," "defeat," "reject") constituted the "magic words" test, and their presence in a political advertisement paid for by an independent entity defined the ad as "express advocacy," subject to rules limiting political contributions and expenditures. Prior to the passage of the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act, independent entities (including corporations and unions) could create "issue advocacy" ads that were not subject to campaign finance law by judiciously avoiding the use of the magic words. An infamous example of this tactic was an advertisement targetting Montana congressional candidate Bill Yellowtail that used the script:

Who is Bill Yellowtail? He preaches family values, but he took a swing at his wife. Yellowtail's explanation? He only slapped her, but her nose was not broken. He talks law and order, but is himself a convicted criminal. And though he talks about protecting children, Yellowtail failed to make his own child support payments, then voted against child support enforcement. Call Bill Yellowtail and tell him we don't approve of his wrongful behavior.

The passage of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act has somewhat lessened the importance of the magic words.

-csswasey

[edit] Who Voted which Way ???

Inquireing minds want to know !! --149.152.34.28 19:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

If you're referring to the decision that is the topic of the article, a "per curiam" decision (like this one) means essentially that the whole court has written the opinion. This does not necessarily make the opinion unanimous; as you can see in this case, Burger, White, Marshall, Blackmun and Rehnquist all concurred in part and dissented in part. If you're referring to Congress in enacting the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, that information might be archived on Congress's websites. JSC ltd (talk) 23:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)