Until recently, Democrats were bashing the decision in Citizens United vs. FEC. Now, they’re taking advantage of it.
Sen. John McCain, namesake of a landmark campaign finance reform law, said he and Dem Russ Feingold were initially worried about donations coming from undisclosed sources
Is corporate spending in our elections drowning out individuals’ First Amendment rights?
The requirement that candidates identify themselves in campaign ads is supposed to prevent candidates from airing ridiculous ads. It hasn’t stopped Alan Grayson.
Democrats need one Republican vote to block a filibuster of the campaign spending disclosure bill
Back to the center? - The Hill
McCain faces choice after victory
Instead of focusing on the economy, President Obama is focusing on protecting incumbent politicians.
Democratic leaders are opening debate on Elena Kagan’s Supreme Court nomination next week, leaving only a few days before most senators hope to leave for recess
DISCLOSE Act: Winners & Losers - TheDC
As Thursday’s expected vote approaches, take a look at who stands to gain and lose if DISCLOSE passes
Free speech concerns impact campaign finance reform bill - The Daily Caller
Political bloggers force House Dems to change the language of the campaign finance reform bill, due to their concerns over free speech
While Van Hollen and Schumer move to prevent TARP recipients from election spending, they hold the gate open for Big Labor
The way to curb corruption in politics is to give politicians control over fewer things
RNC pushing for unlimited soft money donations - The Daily Caller
On Friday, Michael Steele and the RNC appealed to the Supreme Court after a federal court denied the RNC permission to raise soft money for state elections and congressional redistricting
On first reading the Supreme Court’s Jan. 21 decision on Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which overruled provisions of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform act that criminalized union and corporate public advocacy advertisements urging the election or defeat of a federal candidate within 30-60 days of the election, I thought of my favorite quote—the one above—from my favorite Supreme Court Justice of all, Hugo Black.
In the week since the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in my case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, there has been a significant amount of hyperbole flying around the liberal blogosphere fueled by the likes of Keith Olbermann (“a decision that might actually have more dire implications than Dred Scott”), Sen. Chuck Schumer (“The Supreme Court has just pre-determined the winners of next November’s elections”), and President Obama (“It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies”). While the facts of the case have been distorted in myriad ways, there are two distortions in particular that are so egregious for such learned men that they deserve to be called on the carpet.
Prior to the Supreme Court’s decision last week in Citizens United v. FEC, Jefferson Smith, Jimmy Stewart’s archetypal hero who arrived in our nation’s capital to take on the special interests, may never have made it to Washington. The film Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, after all, was speech funded by a corporation. As pointed out by Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the court’s majority in Citizens United, some officials at the time discouraged the film’s distribution because they did not like its criticism of Congress. Under prior precedent governing our campaign finance laws, such officials could have gone even farther and banned the film outright.
The decision of the Supreme Court in Citizens United v. FEC has set off a fundraising sprint as the country enters the 2010 election cycle. The court’s majority opinion, which opens the door to increased independent expenditures for elections at all levels, may get the law right. But it spells pure trouble for state court judicial elections.