“Citizens United” on The Daily Caller

For months, lawyers and constitutional scholars have debated the effects of Citizens United vs. FEC. (more)

What’s more important than putting together a new budget for the federal government? If you’re one of the 219 representatives whose vote secured the passage of the so-called “DISCLOSE Act” in the House last Thursday, the answer is simple:  providing incumbents with job security. (more)

As the Senate Judiciary Committee continues hearings on Solicitor General Elena Kagan’s nomination to the Supreme Court, a number of the Court’s critics, most prominently Senator Arlen Specter (D-Pa.), are using the opportunity to castigate the “judicial activism” of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. (more)

The DISCLOSE Act, which Democrats hope will help offset some of the effects of the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC earlier this year, is nothing if not contentious. Supporters of the campaign finance reform bill say it would limit the role of money in elections. Critics claim it would unconstitutionally suppress free speech and that, for a transparency bill, it seems a little too secretive. (more)

The Supreme Court’s landmark 5-4 decision earlier this year in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which upheld the right of corporations to make certain independent election expenditures, brought Democrats together for one overriding purpose: curbing the effects of the ruling. (more)

Despite opposition from the left and the right, House Democratic leaders are cautiously optimistic they have enough votes to pass a new campaign finance bill. (more)

House Democrats have agreed to alter the language in a bill that would reduce the sting of a recent Supreme Court campaign finance ruling in response to allegations from political bloggers that the legislation would restrict free speech. (more)

When Obama’s Supreme Court selection turned out to be a woman who never even held a position on the legal bench and had more questions in her career than court cases, most were not surprised and new any resulting decision would be questionable not only when it came to ability and experience but also credibility for the job. Nonetheless, Elena Kagan was not what anyone really expected. (more)

After premiers at CPAC and the National Tea Party Convention, Citizens United’s new film, “Generation Zero,” hit the big screen again, Georgetown style. (more)

In response to the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, so-called reformers have proposed reactionary legislation to hamper the ability of small businesses, corporations, non-profits, and labor organizations to exercise First Amendment rights. Barbra Streisand, in a column on Huffington Post, spoke up for one in particular—the Fair Elections Now Act. The FENA purports to level the playing field by funding candidates through public financing of campaigns. The act would require candidates to raise at least 1,500 contributions for a total of $50,000 before the candidate would qualify for public funding, and there would be a strict limit of $100 per contributor. (more)

Barack Obama has long decried the corrupting influence of money in politics. As a candidate, he ran against lobbyists and the pay-for-play culture of Washington. As president, he has continued to hammer the theme, most recently in his impassioned attacks on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United v Federal Election Commission. (more)

Following the recent Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission to allow unlimited corporate funding of federal campaigns, Murray Hill Inc. today announced it was filing to run for U.S. Congress (more)

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. (more)

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Anthony Alito dissed President Barack Obama Wednesday night. (more)