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 (10[1])dissent to a 1978 case involving First National Bank (10[1])of Boston questioned a doctrine about these (10[1])things. A headnote to the 1886 Santa Clara decision said that the Equal Protection (10[1])Clause applies to these (10[1])things. In the US, (10[1])the “alter ego” doctrine may involve a three-part test to decide whether to “pierce” (10[1])the “veil” (10[1])named (10[1])for (10[2])these things. Applying Bellotti as precedent, a case concerning (-5[1])Hillary: the (-5[1])Movie (10[2])expanded the First Amendment (10[1])rights (10[1])of, (10[1])for 10 (10[1])points, what legal (10[1])entities whose campaign spending was sanctioned by (10[1])the Citizens (-5[1])United (10[1])decision? (10[1]0[1])■END■