¹û¶³´«Ã½app¹Ù·½

During his 2018 Senate reelection campaign and consistent with federal law, Ted Cruz loaned $260,000 to his campaign committee, Ted Cruz for Senate.

"[W]hether, under this Court’s precedents interpreting the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment, the City’s regulation is subject to strict scrutiny."

Do Vermonts mandatory limits on candidate expenditures violate the First Amendment as interpreted in Buckley v. Valeo (1976)?

Whether BCRAs so-called "Millionaires Amendment," which relaxes campaign finance limits for opponents of congressional candidates spending more than $350,000 of their own money, violates either the First or Fifth Amendments.

Whether the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Acts ban on election season campaign ads by corporations violates the First Amendment.

Whether Vermont's mandatory limits on candidate expenditures violate the 1st and 14th Amendments and the Supreme Court's decision in Buckley v. Valeo? Whether Vermont's treatment of independent expenditures by political parties and committees presumptively coordinated if they benefit fewer than six candidates, and thereby subject to strict contribution and expenditure limits, is consistent with the 1st and 14th Amendments and the Supreme Court's decision in Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. FEC? Whether Vermont's contribution limits, which are the lowest in the country, which allow only a single maximum contribution over a two-year election cycle, and which prohibit state political parties from contributing more than $400 to their gubernatorial candidate, fall below an acceptable constitutional threshold and should be struck down?

Whether the three-judge district court correctly dismissed appellant's as-applied constitutional challenge to the federal prohibition on the use of corporate treasury funds to finance "electioneering communications."

Did the 8th Circuit err in holding that the 1985 Beef Promotion & Research Act, and regulations promulgated there under which impose assessments on beef producers and importers to fund research, education, and promotional activities carried out by special administrative bodies created by Congress for the express purpose of furthering important governmental objectives under direct supervision of Secretary of Agriculture are unconstitutional and unenforceable?

Whether the district court erred by upholding portions of the "soft money" provision (section 101) of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), Pub. L. No. 107-155, 166 Stat. 81, because it constitutes an invalid exercise of Congress' power to regulate elections under Article I, Section 4, of the Constitution; violates the First Amendment or the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment; or is unconstitutionally vague. Whether the district court erred by upholding portions of the "electioneering communications" provisions (sections 201, 203, 204, and 311), of BCRA, because they violate the First Amendment or the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment, or are unconstitutionally vague. Whether the district court erred by holding nonjusticiable challenges to, and upholding, portions of the "advance notice" provisions, the "coordination" provisions, and the "attack ad" provision of BCRA (section 305), because they violates the First Amendment.

Whether certain advocacy groups can contribute to candidates campaigns. Currently, only individuals, political action committees, political parties and other campaign committees can give to candidates. More specifically, the issue is whether North Carolina Right to Life and other nonprofit advocacy corporations groups that raise money not through business ventures but through donations from supporters can make campaign contributions. Such groups have neither business interests nor shareholders.

Whether the Party Expenditure Provision of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 violates a political party's First Amendment rights by limiting the amount of money a party may spend in coordination with its congressional candidates.

Does a compelled generic advertising program for mushroom producers violate the commercial speech rights of a mushroom producer who does not wish to participate in the program?

Whether the Buckley v. Valeodecision authorizes state limits on campaign-contributions to state political candidates. Whether the limits approved in Buckleydefine the scope of permissible state limitations.

Whether a California state law that prohibits the release of arrestees' personal addresses if used for commercial purposes, but allows the release of such information for other purposes, violates the First Amendment.

Whether a federal law banning truthful, nonmisleading broadcast ads of private casino gaming violates commercial free-speech rights.

Whether the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture may constitutionally require handlers of California peaches, nectarines, and plums to fund generic advertising of those fruits.

Whether campaign spending limits constitutionally can be applied against a state committee of a political party whose spending was not coordinated with a candidate.

Whether a state may constitutionally prohibit truthful, non-misleading price advertising regarding alcoholic beverages.

Do the Florida Bar rules prohibiting direct mail solicitation of accident victims violate the free speech of personal injury attorneys?

Whether the Federal Alcohol Administration Act may constitutionally prohibit brewers from displaying the alcohol content of their beer on the beer's label.

Whether the government may constitutionally prohibit an attorney from including in her advertising truthful references to the facts that she is a certified public accountant and a certified financial planner.

Whether the government may constitutionally prohibit a broadcaster licensed in a state that bans lotteries from broadcasting lottery advertisements, even when the vast majority of the broadcaster's audience resides in a state that allows lotteries.

Whether the government may constitutionally prohibit a certified public accountant from directly and personally soliciting non-clients.

Whether a city ordinance prohibiting the distribution of commercial flyers from news racks on city-owned property violates the First Amendment.

(1) Whether a state may constitutionally prohibit an attorney from making statements to the press that he or she knows or reasonably should know will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding and, if so, (2) whether the State Bar of Nevada properly applied the rule in this case.

Whether a rule barring lawyers from advertising certification as a legal specialist violated the First Amendment's freedom of speech clause.

Did the Michigan Campaign Finance Act violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments?

Whether a Kentucky rule barring the mailing or delivery of written advertisements related to a "specific event . . . involving or relating to the addressee . . . as distinct from the general public" violated the First Amendment.

Whether a series of Ohio laws prohibiting advertising by lawyers about a specific legal problem, containing illustration, or omitting crucial information violated the First Amendment.

Whether a federal law prohibiting the mailing of unsolicited advertisements for contraceptives violates the First Amendment.

Whether provisions of the 1971 Federal Election Campaign Act restricting union and corporation's funds for political purposes to members of the corporation violate the First Amendment's guarantees of associational rights.

Whether a Missouri law limiting areas of information that can be advertised by lawyers violates freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment.

Whether a $250 limit on contributions to committees in support of or opposition to ballot initiatives in California violated First Amendment guarantees of association and free speech.

Whether a provision of the 1971 Federal Elections Campaign Act prohibiting individual contributions of over $5000 to multicandidate political committees violated First Amendment guarantees of speech and associational freedoms.

Whether an order of appellee New York Public Service Commission that prohibits the inclusion by appellant and other public utility companies in monthly bills of inserts discussing controversial issues of public policy directly infringes the freedom of speech protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments and thus is invalid.

Whether a state-issued ban on promotional advertising by public utility companies in order to conserve energy resources violates the First Amendment.

Whether a city ordinancewhich bars door-to-door solicitation by charities that cannot prove that 75% of their proceeds go directly to charitable purposesviolates the 1st and 14th Amendment free speech rights of solicitors.

Whether the sanctioning of an ACLU lawyer for informng a woman through direct mail about legal assistance available from the ACLU violated speech and associational freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment.

Whether the Bar, acting with state authorization, constitutionally may discipline a lawyer for soliciting clients in person, for pecuniary gain, under circumstances likely to pose dangers that the State has a right to prevent.

Whether a state criminal statute that forbids certain expenditures by banks and business corporations for the purpose of influencing the vote on referendum proposals violates the First Amendment.

Whether an Arizona rule that restricts attorney advertising violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

Under the First Amendment as applied to the states, can a licensed pharmacist be disciplined for unprofessional conduct if he "publishes, advertises or promotes, directly or indirectly, in any manner whatsoever, any amount, price, fee, premium, discount, rebate or credit terms . . . for any drugs which may be dispensed only by prescription"?

Do the Federal Election Campaign Act’s limits on electoral expenditures violate the 1st Amendment?

An advertisement carried in appellants newspaper led to his conviction for a violation of a Virginia statute that made it a misdemeanor, by the sale or circulation of any publication, to encourage or prompt the procuring of an abortion. The issue is whether the editor-appellant's First Amendment rights were unconstitutionally abridged by the statute.

Whether a broadcast licensee's general policy of not selling advertising time to individuals or groups wishing to speak out on issues they consider important violates the Federal Communications Act or the First Amendment.

Whether a "Green River Ordiance" which bans the soliciting of individuals on their property without their consent violates the First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment freedom of speech rights of magazine solicitors.

Whether an order issued by the Postmaster General that mail to Read Magazine be marked "fraudulent" and returned to sender violated the First Amendment

Whether a Pennsylvania ordinance imposing a tax on sale of religious materials violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

Whether a local ordinance that prohibited the distribution of literature of any kind, and in any way, without first obtaining written permission from the city manager violated the First Amendment.

Does a Nebraska statute criminalizing the use of the American flag on advertisements violate the Fourteenth Amendment?