…Here….

…Clinton, the former senator from New York and secretary of state (U.S. v. Danielczyk, E.D. Va., Criminal No. 11-85, pleas entered 2/26/13). Plea agreements signed in the case indicated that Danielczyk could face five years in prison as a result of the long-running criminal case, while Biagi faces probable probation and a fine. They are due to be sentenced May 17. Danielczyk and Biagi agreed to plead guilty in an unexpected move on the day a trial…

…corporate contribution limit stands under earlier Supreme Court authority. Danielczyk case the only case to reach a contrary conclusion in the district court, but was reversed by the 4th Circuit to bring it in line with the other circuits. Although there was no circuit split on this question (a common reason for the Supreme Court to agree to hear the case), the lower courts clearly expressed the opinion that the issue was foreclosed by earlier Sup…

It turns out that Danielczyk has been relisted for Friday’s conference. (Thanks to a reader for calling this to my attention.) The Court could still put the case on hold for McCutcheon, or grant and hear the case net term as well, or deny cert. My betting at this point would be on the first or second, but not the third, option. We’ll see. The McCutcheon grant of review got front page coverage in the New York Times, as well as this NYT editorial….

…onal challenge to the century-old ban on corporate campaign contributions (Danielczyk v. U.S., U.S., No. 12-579, cert. petition filed 11/8/12). The case challenging the corporate contribution ban was distributed Jan. 23 for consideration at the justices’ private conference on Feb. 15. The court also received Jan. 23 a reply brief from lawyers representing businessmen William Danielczyk and Eugene Biagi.” Also at the same conference: a petition (Mc…

…the Second, Fourth (after the rejection of the district court decision in Danielczyk) and Ninth Circuits (in the Thalheimer case in which I was involved) in holding that any challenge to corporate contribution bans in the lower courts is barred by the Supreme Court’s decision in FEC v. Beaumont. The 8th Circuit does drop a footnote however suggesting that if and when this issue reaches the Supreme Court again, the Court could well overrule Beaumo…

…Is the timing of this plea one of the immediate consequences of Danielczyk?…

…paigns faced skepticism from a federal appeals court panel May 18 (U.S. v. Danielczyk, 4th Cir., No. 11-4667, oral argument 5/18/12)….During the May 18 argument, questioning by Traxler and the two other judges on the appellate panel hinted that they were considering overturning the district court ruling because of concerns that the corporate contribution ban was upheld by the Supreme Court in a 2003 case, known as Beaumont v. Federal Election Comm…

…onstitutional the federal ban on corporate campaign contributions (U.S. v. Danielczyk, 4th Cir., No. 11-4667, amicus filed 1/10/12).” Also: “The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit is considering a challenge to Minnesota’s campaign finance law regulating corporate money, which includes a corporate contribution ban in state campaigns (Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life Inc. (MCFL) v. Swanson, 8th Cir., No. 10-3126, rehearing en banc ord…

…(now up on en banc appeal) and disagreeing with the district court in the Danielczyk case (now on appeal to the 4th Circuit), a federal district court in San Diego today had upheld the City of San Diego’s laws banning corporations, labor unions, and other non-individual entities (aside from political parties) from contributing money directly to candidates for City office. The opinion in Thalheimer v. City of San Diego is here.[Disclosure: I am on…

…Think Progress Justice:Survey: Illegal Corporate Campaign Contributions Up 400%….

…See here….

…Fred Wertheimer on the RNC brief in Danielczyk which I flagged yesterday. MORE from the WSJ law blog….

…FEC v. Beaumont remains good law (“The Court is aware of United States v. Danielczyk, No. 1:11cr85 (JCC), 2011 WL 2161794 (E.D. Va. May 26, 2011), which struck down a ban on corporate contributions, based on what it called an ‘inescapable’ expansion of Citizen United’s logic. Id. at *18; Danielczyk, 2011 WL 2268063 (E.D. Va. June 7, 2011) (denying reconsideration). The role of an appellate court is to apply to law as it exists. Since the Supreme…

…This press release links to this 4th Circuit amicus brief in Danielczyk. (The brief cites some of my blog posts on this case.)…

…Bloomberg reports. If anyone has a link to the brief, or copy of the brief, please send it along….

…Here (starting at page 100). (h/t Brian Svoboda)….

…s does not violate the First Amendment. The court also held that a temporal limitation on campaign contributions (no contributions more than a year before an election) is likely constitutional. [Disclosure: I am one of the attorneys for the City of San Diego.] The district court in the Danielczyk case held that the federal corporate contribution ban was unconstitutional, a case now on appeal to the Fourth Circuit. The Eighth Circuit in the Swanson…

…Here, at the Northern Virginia Lawyer….

…BNA Money and Politics Report offers this report. UPDATE: The end of the article states: “The Justice Department is believed to be considering filing an appeal of Cacheris’ ruling, which threw out one count of an indictment of Danielczyk.”…