Trevor Potter on Citizen’s United
Trevor Potter offers a thorough treatment (for an article sized piece) of the Citizen’s United decision by the US Supreme Court in a speech at an Annual Meeting of the American Law Institute. The link is to the transcript via Alternet.
…coverage is so successful because it accurately describes a campaign finance world that seems too surreal to be true. A system that claims to require disclosure of money spent to elect or defeat candidates, but in fact provides so many ways around that requirement as to make disclosure optional; a system that says that “independent expenditures” cannot be limited as a matter of Constitutional law because they cannot corrupt because they are “totally independent” of candidates and parties—…
Beverly Mann points us to a June 14 date for SCOTUS review of the case:
Here’s a link to a SCOTUSblog article from yesterday laying out the Court’s timeline and options concerning how they’ll proceed in the Montana case. They’re expected to decide on June 14 whether to simply summarily reverse the Montana Supreme Court without briefing and oral argument, or instead to agree to decide the case after full briefing and oral argument next term: http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/05/montana-detainee-cases-set/. I expect them to do the latter. But, who knows?
From the article: It is so bad that the Commission did not even have the necessary majority vote—four out of six Commissioners—to put out a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking after Citizens United and seek comment on whether it should change the regulations just invalidated by the Supreme Court. It is an agency so deadlocked that on several occasions it has not been able to agree to appeal when its own regulations were declared “contrary to law” by federal district courts.
Nothing like achieving smaller government.
” “independent expenditures” cannot be limited as a matter of Constitutional law because they cannot corrupt because they are “totally independent” of candidates and parties—…”
This and similar comments keep croping up giving the impression that the Citizen’s United decision is in some way based upon the individual or organization being at arm’s length from the candidate that is being assisted by the “free political speech” of that individual or organization. So how is it that most of the high profile super PACs are funded by individuals who have made it very clear in the press or similar public forum, that they favor one candidate over the other. In spite of that apparent and often clearly stated support of the one candidate over another still there is a presumption of total independence from the candidates. How is Karl Rove independent of any Republican candidate? So too Grover Norquist, Sheldon Adelson, etc. all of whom has repeatedly stated their opposition to Obama and all things Democratic Party related.