In Defense of Citizens United | Michael McConnell at Yale L.J. via SSRN

Alito Defends ‘Citizens’ in Speech to Federalist Society

Michael McConnell: Citizens United and the Wisconsin Vote

Will SCOTUS Stamp Out Montana’s Constitutional Mischief? – Corporate Campaign Expenditures

‘Occupy the Courts’ Protests Hit Supreme Court and Federal Courthouses Nationwide

Common Cause v. Scalia and Thomas

New York Times: Our Constitutional Court

Law Review: Confronting the Impact of Citizens United

    Justin Levitt, Confronting the Impact of Citizens United (September 13, 2010). Yale Law & Policy Review, Vol. 29, 2010; Loyola-LA Legal Studies Paper No. 2010-39. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1676108

    “This Essay confronts the impact of Citizens United in two respects. Part I first reviews Citizens United’s place in the campaign finance constellation. It argues that although the decision was a bold stroke in many ways, its impact on the scope of permissible campaign finance regulation is far less substantial than commonly assumed.

    Even if Citizens United’s incremental impact is mild, it nevertheless seems to have the feel of a final straw. The decision has provoked first furor, and then fear, with opponents invoking a broad vision of a dystopian political process overwhelmed by corporations. Yet rarely is the fear of corporate political spending articulated at a level of specificity conducive to assessing, or confronting, the perceived damage. Part II takes up the challenge, parsing the pragmatic concerns at the root of opposition to corporate political spending. It then offers responsive policy proposals – including an approach to protect against monopolization of media channels, an appealingly straightforward disclaimer label to mitigate voter misperception, and a novel application of a recusal obligation to combat the appearance of corruption – all well within the regulatory space undisturbed by Citizens United.”


  • Posted: 10/08/2010
  • |
  • Category: Religious Liberty
  • |
  • Source: ssrn.com

  • Tags: , , , ,

Citizens United’s personhood debate and the take away for reproductive justice

What next after Citizens United?

The ACLU Approves Limits on Speech: On campaign contributions, a dramatic about-face.

    Floyd Abrams, Ira Glass and Joel Gora write at the Wall Street Journal: “If that headline has a certain man bites dog quality, it’s because for almost 40 years the ACLU was the one major liberal organization that opposed campaign finance restrictions as violating the First Amendment . . . Nonetheless, we’ve come to this: The premier First Amendment organization in America now favors limitations on the First Amendment in the area in which all agree it must have its most powerful application—political speech during election campaigns.”

    “Mr. Abrams represented Sen. Mitch McConnell in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Mr. Glasser was executive director of the ACLU from 1978-2001. Mr. Gora, a professor at Brooklyn Law School, is counsel to ACLU on campaign finance cases.”


  • Posted: 04/30/2010
  • |
  • Category: Religious Liberty
  • |
  • Source: online.wsj.com

  • Tags: , ,

Democrats Aim to Tap Populist Anger in High-Court Fight

High court mulls speech rights — and more

GOP warns Obama over SCOTUS litmus test on Citizens United

Supreme Court cases test speech rights and more

Are Citizens Uniting Against Citizens United?

C-Span: Hudson Institute Discussion on Nonprofits and Citizens United

Dems look to crack down on corporate political spending ahead of midterms

Janet M. LaRue: Justice Alito Dissents

How the Plaintiffs Bar Bought the Senate: Citizens United might break its political stranglehold.

    James Copland writes at the Wall Street Journal (paid subscription only): “The Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission to permit independent campaign expenditures by corporations has led to a good deal of hysteria about money and influence in politics. But for those, like me, who view factions as inherent in democracy, the decision was welcome. Labyrinthine campaign-finance laws serve mainly to entrench incumbents and empower those special interests either exempted from regulation (i.e., the institutional media) or best able to navigate the maze of rules. Among the latter group, no lobby has been more empowered than the legal profession—specifically the trial lawyers . . . ”


  • Posted: 02/09/2010
  • |
  • Category: Miscellaneous
  • |
  • Source: online.wsj.com

  • Tags: , ,

Citizens United and the Problem of Modern Judicial Activism — The Strict Scrutiny Test

Justice Thomas Defends Ruling on Finance

Senate Hearing: ‘Corporate America vs. The Voter’

“Alito disparages Obama’s Supreme Court criticism”

Activists see threat to Roe precedent in campaign finance decision

Supreme Court rolls back campaign spending limits

Special sitting tomorrow, opinion(s) due — Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

Campaign finance activists on pins and needles awaiting Supreme Court ruling

Hurry Up and Wait: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

Final High Court Session of 2009 Ends Without Campaign Finance Decision