Tossup

An “anti-distortion” rationale for restricting these things was held to [emphasize] not be a compelling state interest when the Austin decision was overturned. In a translation of Otto von Gierke (“GEER-kuh”), Frederic Maitland used the phrase “right-and-duty-bearing” to describe these things. William Rehnquist’s dissent (10[1])to a 1978 case involving First National Bank of (10[1])Boston questioned a doctrine about these things. (10[1])A headnote to the 1886 Santa Clara decision said that the Equal Protection Clause (10[1])applies to these things. (10[1])In the US, the (10[1])“alter ego” doctrine may involve a three-part test to decide whether to “pierce” the (10[1])“veil” named (10[1])for (10[1])these (10[2])things. Applying Bellotti as precedent, a case concerning Hillary: (-5[1])the Movie (-5[1])expanded (10[2])the First Amendment rights (10[1])of, (10[1])for (10[1])10 points, (10[1])what legal entities (10[1])whose campaign spending was sanctioned by the (10[1])Citizens United (-5[1])decision? (10[1])■END■ (10[1]0[1])

Back to tossups

Buzzes

Summary