Daily Media Links 6/29: GOP lawsuit challenges campaign contribution caps, The Supreme Court’s Cowardice, and more…

June 29, 2012   •  By Joe Trotter   •  
Default Article

Fourth Circuit Upholds Ban on Corporate Contributions in Danielczyk
By Zac Morgan
In Citizens United,  the Supreme Court affirmed the principle that the government cannot prohibit the speech of Americans based on their decision to associate in the corporate form. But only for independent expenditures,  because there is no real nexus between independent speech and corruption or the appearance thereof. Once those same individuals associate together in the corporate form and contribute money directly to a campaign,  Federal law still prohibits that expressive activity.
Read more…

Independent groups

Chicago Tribune: Corporations stay out of politics
By Steve Chapman
When the U.S. Supreme Courtventures into the subject of corporate political spending,  it has a way of fogging the minds of its critics. Earlier this year,  lamenting the infamous 2010 Citizens United decision,  Sen. Patrick Leahy,  D-Vt.,  said,  “The rights of Vermonters and all Americans to speak to each other and to be heard should not be undercut by corporate spending.”
Read more…

Bloomberg: Company Campaign Funds Ban Survives Citizens United Test
By Tom Schoenberg
The U.S. Supreme Court decision giving corporations the same rights as people to spend money independently to support political campaigns didn’t overturn a century-old ban on direct corporate donations to candidates,  a federal court ruled.
Read more…

Huffington Post: The Corporate Fallacy
By Harlan Green
The dust is settling on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to nullify Montana’s 99-year old law that banned political contributions by corporations. But the controversy is not settled,  since the majority Justices’ interpretation in what has been called Citizen’s United II is that since corporations are ‘persons’ in law,  they should be protected by First Amendment free speech,  regardless of its affect on the functioning of our democracy.
Read more…

Reuters: Do election laws encourage attack ads in campaigns?
By Andy Sullivan
Washington operatives call it “drawing contrasts.” Voters call it “slinging mud.”
Read more…

USA Today: Pro-Obama group keeps up attack on Romney’s record
By Catalina Camia
A super PAC backing President Obama is out with a new TV ad today criticizing Mitt Romney for making money on business deals in which companies went bankrupt.
Read more…


Bloomberg: The Supreme Court’s Cowardice 
In summarily dismissing a Montana case in which the state’s high court had upheld an anti- corruption statute regulating corporate spending on elections,  the U.S. Supreme Court this week opted to see no evil,  hear no evil and speak no truth.


Missoulian: Judge upholds Montana law forbidding political endorsement of judicial candidates
A federal judge Tuesday refused to block Montana’s law forbidding political parties from endorsing a nonpartisan judicial candidate,  saying their involvement could transform judicial contests into partisan races.

Candidates and parties

Washington Post: GOP lawsuit challenges campaign contribution caps
By TW Farnam
The Republican National Committee filed a lawsuit last week challenging campaign contribution limits set by the federal government,  continuing the party’s efforts to dismantle the laws restricting money in political campaigns.

Joe Trotter


Share via
Copy link
Powered by Social Snap