pageok
pageok
pageok
Rick Hasen (Election Law Blog) on the Citizens United Corporate Free Speech Rights Case:

His live-blogging of the audio release is here, and his predictions are here:

As I noted, I cannot with confidence make predictions about the outcome of the Citizens United case based on oral argument questions, given the recent experience in NAMUDNO in which CJ Roberts and Justice Kennedy seemed sure votes to overturn section 5 of the Voting Rights Act but did not. But there was absolutely nothing in the Citizens United oral argument questions of the two likely "swing justices" in this case to give any comfort to those who believe that Congress should have the power to limit corporate spending in candidate elections.

Rick is one of the top election law scholars in the country, and is generally a supporter of restrictions on corporate speech about candidates, so he isn't just hearing what he hopes to hear. Rick also reports that "Justice Sotomayor asked the questions I would have asked" -- high praise from any law professor! -- "and seems likely to be a very strong replacement for Justice Souter on campaign finance issue."

troll_dc2 (mail):
Let's assume that the Court rules that the Constitution forbids Congress to restrict campaign contributions by corporations. Would this also necessarily mean that Congress could not enact legislation to ban the deduction of such contributions in calculating the income taxes that corporations pay?
9.9.2009 7:24pm
Nunzio:
troll_dc2,

The case is about corporate expenditures not corporate contributions to candidates (though a lot of the media coverage doesn't note the distinction). No one, at least not yet, is challenging the limitations on corporate contributions (or individual contributions).
9.9.2009 7:35pm
einhverfr (mail) (www):
I have a hard time predicting what this court will do. I will note that Kagen seemed far less prepared than the other lawyers in argument. She also seemed resigned to a loss.
9.9.2009 7:56pm
Soronel Haetir (mail):
einhverfr,

You are called back to a special sitting after having already had the case argued once. You have been tasked to make a more sweeping defense than the first time around. Wouldn't you be expecting a loss, your goal to try and salvage what you can?
9.9.2009 9:22pm
troll_dc2 (mail):

The case is about corporate expenditures not corporate contributions to candidates (though a lot of the media coverage doesn't note the distinction). No one, at least not yet, is challenging the limitations on corporate contributions (or individual contributions).


Is that the next case?
9.10.2009 10:43am
Soronel Haetir (mail):
Troll,

Given the number of cases that have upheld contribution limits and the current makeup of the court, I doubt such limits are going away anyyyyyyyyyytime soon.
9.10.2009 11:07am

Post as: [Register] [Log In]

Account:
Password:
Remember info?

If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.

Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.

We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.

And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.