Daniel Jordon White v. the State of Texas

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that restrictions on the activity of 6 contributing to a candidate’s campaign are “merely ‘marginal’ speech 7 restrictions subject to relatively complaisant review”
• holding that restrictions on the activity of 12 contributing to a candidate’s campaign are “merely ‘marginal’ speech 13 restrictions subject to relatively complaisant review”
• recognizing that federal law bars corporations from contributing directly and therefore holding the proscription of nonprofit advocacy corporations' contributions to candidates constitutional
• recognizing that federal law bars corporations from contributing directly and therefore holding the proscription of nonprofit advocacy corporations’ contributions to candidates constitu- tional
• holding that restrictions on the activity of 12 contributing to a candidate’s campaign are “merely ‘marginal’ speech 13 restrictions subject to relatively complaisant review”
• holding that restrictions on the activity of 12 contributing to a candidate’s campaign are “merely ‘marginal’ speech 13 restrictions subject to relatively complaisant review”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).