The ACLU has issued this press release.
Monthly Archives: April 2010
Abrams, Glasser, and Gora Unhappy with the ACLU’s Change of Position on Constitutionality of “Reasonable” Campaign Contribution Limits
See this WSJ oped.
Ever Wonder What Motivates Jim Bopp in the Campaign Finance Cases?
Read this.
More DISCLOSE Commentaries
House Version of DISCLOSE Act
Available here.
“ALERT: House and Senate Respond to Citizens United Ruling”
Caplin & Drysdale analyze.
“Updating Felons’ Voting Rights”
SCOTUSBlog reports.
Floyd Abrams Also Sees a Campaign Finance-Kittens Connection, But Reaches a Different Conclusion
See here.
Ninth Circuit Decides Long Beach Campaign Finance Case
You can read the decision here. The decision strikes down application of a Long Beach city law to the Long Beach Chamber of Commerce PAC barring the PAC from taking unlimited contributions to fund independent expenditure committees. [Disclosure: I have a related issue pending in the Ninth Circuit in the San Diego case.].
“Crush Democracy But Save the Kittens: Justice Alito’s Double Standard for the First Amendment”
My new Slate Jurisprudence column begins:
- Since joining the Supreme Court in 2006, Justice Samuel Alito has been the main judicial roadblock to sensible campaign-finance laws. By equating money spent on elections with free speech and expression, in the name of the First Amendment, Justice Alito cast the deciding vote in a series of cases culminating with the Citizens United case opening the spigot for corporate money in elections. He authored a 5-4 decision emphatically rejecting the idea that campaign-finance limits could be justified as a means of preventing the wealthy from using their great resources to skew election outcomes and legislation. Indeed, he’s twice gone out of his way to write separate opinions inviting future litigants to bring challenges to key Supreme Court precedents upholding campaign finance laws. At Wednesday’s oral argument in Doe v. Reed, he alone sounded strident in opposing the disclosure of the names of people signing ballot measure petitions, on grounds that anonymity is part of the right of political expression. He sure sounds like a free-speech zealot.
Except when it comes to the kittens.
It concludes:
- Congress is now considering undoing some of the damage of Citizens United in the new Disclose Act, just introduced by Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., and Rep. Chris van Hollen, D-Md. Besides strengthening campaign-finance disclosure laws, the law would bar corporations that are foreign-owned or are the recipients of government contracts from spending their general treasury funds on political campaigns.
Justice Alito will no doubt see the Disclose Act as one more threat to the part of the First Amendment he likes. In his view, the kittens must be kept safe. Democracy, not so much.
“Mr McLobbyist Goes to Washington”
The Washington Post offers this very interesting report.
“Ohio court rules on health care ballot issue”
AP offers this report about this single subject opinion of the Ohio Supreme Court.
“Doe v. Reed Oral Argument Wrap Up: Is Anonymity in Politics a Constitutional Right?”
David Gans blogs.
“Bill Would Require Disclosure Of Corporate Election Spending”
The LA Times offers this report. See also this USA Today editorial and this response by John Samples; this opinion piece by Brad Smith at AOL News (I understand a counterpoint is coming); and this blog post at The Hill on unions and DISCLOSE.