In working on my campaign finance book I’ve been working hard writing about the media exemption.  And along comes the Supreme Court itself, which has revamped its media access policy (and kicked out SCOTUSBlog along the way; don’t worry, SCOTUSBlog has a workaround).

One of the arguments the Court majority made in Citizens United is that it is not fair or even possible in this day and age to single out “the press” for special treatment under campaign finance laws.

Well the Supreme Court’s new policy actually defines what it thinks contitutes the media:

Full-Time Journalist.

For purposes of our requirements, a “full-time journalist” is an individual whose primary occupation is the regular gathering of original news and reporting it to the public. We require the applicant to be a “full-time journalist” because such journalists are more likely to devote sustained attention to the Court’s work and make use of the Court’s media resources. We expect that an applicant will normally be able to satisfy the “full-time journalist” requirement through the affirmation of the applicant’s employer or supervisor. To determine whether this requirement has been satisfied, we may also ask applicants if they hold active press credentials from another government entity, such as the Congressional or White House press galleries.

Operates or Is Employed by a Media Organization.

For purposes of our requirements, a “media organization” is an entity that has as its principal business the regular gathering and reporting of original news for the public, that disseminates its reporting through publicly accessible media, and that has operated continuously for the two years preceding the application for credentials. A media organization can distribute information in any medium (print, television, radio, electronic, or otherwise) and can exist as any form of business or other entity. We require the applicant to operate or to be employed by a media organization because individuals so engaged are more likely to regularly and broadly disseminate information about the Court to the public. We expect that an applicant will normally be able to satisfy this requirement through readily available documentation or a record of publications. To ascertain whether this requirement is satisfied, we may also ask applicants whether they hold active press credentials from another government entity, such as the Congressional or White House press galleries.

To ensure that an individual’s coverage will be disseminated through a qualifying media organization, we require that an applicant’s primary professional work must be for the media organization for which the applicant seeks a credential. We intend to limit hard passes to one journalist per media organization, although rare exceptions may be made upon a demonstrated need. Correspondingly, a hard pass may not be shared or transferred among representatives of a media organization.

Substantial and Original Coverage of the Court.

We require that an applicant or the applicant’s media organization have a record of “substantial and original news coverage of the work of the Court” to ensure that hard passes are allocated to those who have greatest need for the privileges they confer.

Journalists and organizations with records of substantial and original coverage of the Court are more likely to disseminate information about the Court’s work to the public. This requirement may be satisfied by documentation of past reporting. For journalists who have not previously covered the Court, the requirement may be satisfied if the applicant’s media organization — rather than the applicant — has regularly published substantial and original reporting about the Court.

Regular Presence at the Court for Reporting Purposes.

The Court has increasingly made records, briefs, opinions, and transcripts readily available on its Website, enabling journalists to report on the Court’s work from remote locations. Consequently, some journalists may cover the Court effectively without a regular presence in the building. Nevertheless, access to the Courtroom press section and pressroom remains important to other journalists. We accordingly allocate press credentials to those journalists who will actually use them. We expect that applicants will normally satisfy the requirement of a regular presence by showing a past record of frequent attendance at Court sessions.

Independence from Individuals and Legal Organizations that Practice Law before the Court.

Lawyers have increasingly entered the domain of journalism, appearing in the media to comment and report on pending cases and legal developments. Many lawyers do so to bring expertise to the reporting, but they may also do so to cultivate and promote their legal practices and affect public perceptions about how the courts should rule. The mixing of professional roles raises ethical concerns. A court’s issuance of a press credential to an attorney who practices before it can create, at the least, an appearance of an unfair advantage over other attorneys through the use of the journalistic privileges that the credential confers. That consideration takes on special significance in the Supreme Court, which adjudicates some of the Nation’s most important, sensitive, and newsworthy legal issues.

We accordingly provide that an applicant for a hard pass may not practice law before the Court. Similar ethical issues may arise if lawyers establish employment relationships with journalists, or if lawyers own or control media organizations. We therefore require that an applicant must also be independent of individuals and organizations that practice law before the Supreme Court. Because of the difficulties of assessing or monitoring the effectiveness of a media organization’s internal safeguards or “firewalls,” we require that an applicant may not be employed or supervised by a lawyer, law firm, or other legal organization that practices before the Court. Similarly, an applicant may not be employed by a media organization owned or controlled by a lawyer, law firm, or legal organization that practices before the Court.

For purposes of our requirements, and to provide a clear rule, we will consider an individual to “practice law before the Court” if the individual has participated as a lawyer in a Supreme Court case during the two years preceding the application for a hard pass. Similarly, a law firm or other legal organization “practice[s] law before the Court” if anyindividual at that firm or organization has appeared as a lawyer in a Supreme Court case in the two years preceding the application for a hard pass. Supreme Court Bar membership alone does not trigger these prohibitions.

Not Employed by the Court within Last Two Years.

As an additional ethical safeguard, we require that an applicant must not have been employed by the Court during the two years preceding the application for a hard pass. This requirement ensures that there is no perception that an applicant receives preferential treatment or advantage based on prior employment with the Court. This requirement is consistent with the Court’s familiar rule that former Court employees may not practice before the Court during the two years that follow separation from employment. See Sup. Ct. R. 7.

There. That was not so hard.

Delicious!