According to the National Journal, labor unions are planning a door-to-door “grassroots” campaign to help Obama get re-elected because, according to Richard L. Trumka, the A.F.L.-C.I.O. president, they simply can’t compete with the fundraising efforts of the super PACs. “We’ll never be able to match them with money,” Trumka says. If Trumka is being sincere then [...]
Trumka Should Thank Citizens United Instead of Complaining
Published on March 12, 2012
Filed Under: Blog, Citizens United, Featured Content, Super PACs, Contributions & Limits, First Amendment, Independent Speech, District Of Columbia
Amicus Brief in US v. Danielczyk
Published on January 11, 2012
The Center for Competitive Politics yesterday filed an amicus brief in U.S. v. Danielczyk, a case that began in May of 2011 when a federal judge in Virginia struck down the ban on direct corporate contributions to federal candidates. The case is currently before the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Filed Under: Uncategorized, Contributions & Limits, First Amendment, Comments and Testimony
Milyo and Primo Amicus Brief in US v. Danielczyk
Published on January 11, 2012
One of the issues presented by this appeal is whether laws barring contributions by corporations to candidates for federal office promote a positive view of government by the public by reducing corruption or the appearance of corruption. In support of this proposition, the United States relies upon research conducted by Amici, Dr. Primo and Dr. Milyo. Dr. Primo and Dr. Milyo do not believe that their research supports such a conclusion. Thus, Amici have an interest in correcting these mistaken assertions by the United States both to protect the integrity of their scholarship and to insure that their research is properly understood by the Court. Dr. Primo and Dr. Milyo will explain herein that laws regulating corporate contributions to candidates for federal office have little effect upon public perceptions of government. Thus, Amici’s research calls into question a key justification for such laws.
Filed Under: Uncategorized, First Amendment, Comments and Testimony
Progressive Intimidation
Published on January 5, 2012
In the nearly two years since the Citizens United decision, the progressive movement has used every avenue it can find to adapt anti-corruption regulation into a force for intimidating corporations out of engaging in independent expenditures.
One of the outcomes of this tactic has been a rise in activist investing. Taking advantage of SEC regulation, activist shareholders buy the requisite value of stock needed to introduce shareholder proposals and propose burdensome disclosure rules targeting political expenditures.
Reform groups can hem and haw all day about the merits of various disclosure regimes, but at the end of the day, it would be disingenuous not to acknowledge that these proposals are in the service of cultivating political power and control.
Filed Under: Blog, Disclosure, Expenditure, Faulty Assumptions, First Amendment, Independent Speech, Issue Advocacy
Montana, America’s most corrupt state
Published on January 4, 2012
Is Montana the nation’s most corrupt state? Are its voters less able to weed out corrupt candidates? The Montana Supreme Court seems to think so.
Filed Under: Blog, First Amendment, Independent Speech
More on Montana, and sticking it to Citizens United
Published on January 2, 2012
Professor Hasen, argues in response to this post on the Montana Supreme Court’s gross misinterpretation, or worse, conscious decision to ignore Citizens United in Western Tradition Partnership v. Attorney General, that the Supreme Court’s decision in Citzens United is “disingenuous.” Brad Smith says no – Citizens United. like its forerunner Buckley v. Valeo, is a straightforward application of the First Amendment, establishing categorical principles to try to define when the state may regulate political speech.
Filed Under: Blog, Expenditure, First Amendment, Independent Speech
CCP amicus brief cited in Western Tradition Partnership dissent
Published on January 2, 2012
CCP’s amicus brief in Western Tradition Partnership v. Attorney General was cited in the first of the two filed dissenting opinions.
Filed Under: Blog, Expenditure, First Amendment
Charge! The Montana Supreme Court takes on Citizens United
Published on December 31, 2011
The Montana Supreme Court on December 30 launched a headlong frontal assault on the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion in Citizens United v. FEC. We predict that the U.S. Supreme Court will make quick work of this frivolous and misguided opinion.
Filed Under: Blog, Enforcement, Expenditure, First Amendment, Independent Speech, Issue Advocacy, Jurisprudence & Litigation
Is Money Speech? The lesson of Wikileaks
Published on October 25, 2011
Contrary to what some believe, the Supreme Court has not held that money is speech, and, of course, the Court is right – money is not speech. But what the Court has recognized, correctly, is that prohibiting people from spending money to speak limits speech, as surely as prohibiting people from spending money to fly, drive, take a train, or buy a bicycle limits travel, or prohibiting a person from supporting his church financially limits the practice of religion.
With that background, we noted this story in today’s Wall Street Journal, on the possible demise of Wikileaks,…
Filed Under: Blog, First Amendment
Activist Investing In Post-Citizens United America
Published on October 18, 2011
In the wake of last year’s U.S. Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC, the scope of political speech protected under the First Amendment has substantially expanded. Whereas corporations and unions were previously prohibited from directly advocating for and against political candidates by spending funds from their general treasury, the Supreme Court has now recognized that those viewpoints are important components of the national debate by which we Americans govern ourselves, and that the First Amendment does not permit the government to suppress or stifle those voices.
But this decision has been controversial. Many object to the Citizens United decision because of a general view that money spent in the political process is somehow inherently corrupting or distorting. Others – especially those from within the environmental and labor movements – see for-profit corporations as their political enemy, and seek partisan or ideological advantage by squelching corporate political speech while their own speech remains unencumbered.
Filed Under: Blog, First Amendment