Federal Election Commission v. Harvey Furgatch

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that “context cannot supply a meaning that is incompatible with, or simply unrelated to, the clear import of the words”
• stating that a speaker's intent is less important than the message conveyed by the speech its.elf because the speaker may expressly advocate regardless of his intention
• noting that the phrases listed in Buckley \do[] not exhaust the capacity of the English language to expressly advocate the election or defeat of a candidate\
• noting that the phrases listed in Buckley \do[] not exhaust the capacity of the English language to expressly advocate the election or defeat of a candidate\
• \The court found that the language of Mr. Furgatch's advertisements left 'no doubt that the ad asks the public to vote against Carter.' \ (emphasis added)
• “[S]peech may only be termed ‘advocacy’ if it presents a clear plea for action, and thus speech that is merely informative is not covered by the Act.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).