The Washington Post offers this report.  

This item appears at the New York Times “Caucus” blog. Guess who’s not happy (besides me) with this ruling? UPDATE: More displeasure.

Given the upcoming 2012 election, it makes sense for the government to seek to appeal this ruling as soon as possible.  An appeal before judgment is an “interlocutory” appeal, and in my earlier post I said I did not know… Continue reading

Judge Catcheris says repeatedly in his order and opinion. that his holding of unconstitutionality applies in this case only  What could he possibly mean? If a corporation made a direct contribution to a candidate in Virginia, could that corporation… Continue reading

Via Ken Vogel comes word of this order from Judge Cacheris.  This is not what I was expecting. The Court has held unconstitutional a 100-year-old ban on direct corporate campaign contributions to candidates. He has done so in direct… Continue reading

Frank Askin and Yael Bromberg have written this oped for the Newark Star-Ledger.    

In my post on Edwards yesterday, I set out my view as to why I think this case will likely come down to subjective motivations, though it is possible a court on a motion to dismiss would say that the… Continue reading

See this press release from Justice at Stake and the Brennan Center.  

See here.  Of course, knowledge of payments is necessary but not sufficient here.  

State of Politics has this post.  There may be VRA considerations.

AP reports.  

The Open Secrets Blog reports.  

Jessica Levinson does an interview about Danielczyk.

Weinergate will not end quickly.