Bill Olson was a guest on Conservative Roundtable to discuss “Federal Election Laws.”
Bill Olson was the opening speaker at today’s Philanthropy Monthly’s 1994 Annual Conference in New York City, addressing: “The Odds for Philanthropy on Capitol Hill: Which Players will count in the new Congress?”
Today our firm filed a Brief for Appellants explaining how the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act violates the First Amendment.
Hearings on the FY 1995 Budget Authorization of the Federal Election Commission Before the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on House Administration, Subcommittee on Elections.
Our firm filed an amicus brief for the Abraham Lincoln Foundation for Public Policy Research, Inc. in the case of Michel v. Anderson in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia supporting the plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction.
The U.S. House of Representatives had adopted a rule change permitting non-Member Delegates from the District of Columbia and the
While Dean of Regent University School of Law, Herb Titus testified against the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. See his prepared statement and transcript of hearings, p. 87-108, Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1991, Hearings before the Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights of the Committee on the Judiciary on H.R. 2797, Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1991, May 13 and 14,
Bill Olson wrote an essay on improving “Program Monitoring” of the Legal Services Corporation published in the book Legal Service for the Poor: Time for Reform, Douglas J. Besharov, edt., AEI Press, 1990.
Bill Olson served a task force studying Export Controls, and contributed to the chapter written by Wayne A. Abernathy entitled Strategic Trade. This chapter was in a book edited and written by Stuart M. Butler, Michael Sanera, and W. Bruce Weinrod entitled Mandate for Leadership II: Continuing the Conservative Revolution, published by The Heritage Foundation, 1984.
Representing Congressman Dickinson, this brief successfully urged the Supreme Court to grant certiorari to resolve the distinction between permissible and impermissible uses by unions of agency fees paid by those working men and woman who choose not to join unions but who are required to pay those fees under law.