Campaign Finance

  • September 9, 2014
    Guest Post

    by Geoffrey R. Stone. He is the Edward H. Levi Distinguished Service Professor of Law for the University of Chicago, the former ACS Board Chair and current Co-Chair of the Board of Advisors for the ACS Chicago Lawyer Chapter, and a Co-Faculty Advisor for the University of Chicago Law School ACS Student Chapter

    *This post originally appeared on the Huffington Post. 

    In the context of ongoing deliberations over a proposed amendment to the Constitution to authorize the government to enact laws regulating campaign expenditures and contributions, a sharp, even bitter, rift has emerged between different generations of the ACLU's leadership over the ACLU's understanding of the First Amendment. The rift is not about whether to adopt the proposed constitutional amendment (neither side of the intra-ACLU debate has endorsed it), but about the ACLU's position on the constitutionality of campaign finance reform today.

    The current leadership of the ACLU takes a strong pro-free speech position that, like the position of Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Chief Justice John Roberts, looks askance at most forms of campaign finance regulation that would limit the freedom of individuals to spend as much as they want in the political process to advance their political beliefs.

    The six individuals who led the ACLU from 1962 to 1993 endorse a rather different view. In a letter sent on September 4 to the leadership of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, they embraced a position that, like the position of Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan, recognizes that limitations on campaign expenditures and contributions may be necessary to ensure the proper functioning of the democratic process.

  • September 9, 2014

    by Caroline Cox

    Walter Shapiro writes for the Brennan Center for Justice on why candidates should reject campaign cash even without strict campaign finance laws.

    In The Boston Globe, Paul Elias reports on oral arguments before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in three cases dealing with same-sex marriage bans in Idaho, Nevada and Hawaii.   

    A constitutional amendment to allow greater regulation of campaign finance advanced in the Senate, but partisanship could still stall the measure, reports Burgess Everett of Politico.

    Daniel LaChance argues in The New York Times that capital punishment is a failed government program.

    Mark Walsh of Education Week writes about the death of Lillian Gobitas Klose, whose refusal to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance in the 1930s led to a Supreme Court case on the First Amendment. 

  • June 13, 2014
    Yesterday, The Southern Poverty Law Center celebrated the 47th anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia, which struck down 16 state bans on interracial marriage.
     
    Ruby Dee, acclaimed actress and civil rights activist died this week at the age of 91. Bruce Weber at The New York Times and Diamond Sharp at The Root remember the life of an American legend. 
     
     
    The Supreme Court handed down two opinions yesterday. Jaclyn Belczyk at Jurist covers the Court’s decision in the bankruptcy case Clark v. Rameker, while Nina Totenberg at NPR breaks down the legal battle between POM Wonderful and Coca-Cola in POM Wonderful LLC v. The Coca Cola Company.
     
    The Senate Judiciary Committee met last week to discuss the Supreme Court’s campaign finance jurisprudence over the last several years.  In an article for the Louisville Courier-Journal, David Gans notes why we need a constitutional amendment to overturn these decisions.
     
    Writing for Concurring Opinions, Gerard Magliocca likens the Supreme Court justices to World Cup referees.

     

  • May 20, 2014
     
    Amid some calls to step down from the bench, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer have remained adamant that retirement is not in their near future. L.J. Zigerell at The Monkey Cage explains why Court watchers should not hold their breath.
     
    Yesterday, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case involving the unfair firing of Robert J. MacLean, an air marshal for the Transportation Security Administration who was dismissed after releasing sensitive information to the media. Robert Barnes at The Washington Post  discusses the possible implications of the case.
     
    At the Brennan Center for Justice, Ciara Torres-Spelliscy follows the recent history of money and politics in New York as the state gets closer to meaningful campaign finance reform.
     
    Jason Mazzone at Balkinization notes his visit to the UK Supreme Court and describes the casually civilized courtroom environment.
     
    Writing for Demos, Devin Fergus examines racial inequality 60 years after the Supreme Court’s landmark decision Brown v. Board of Education.
  • May 16, 2014
     
    An unclassified report released Wednesday by the departments of Justice and Defense assured  members of Congress that “if Guantánamo Bay detainees were relocated to a prison inside the United States, it is unlikely that a court would order their release onto domestic soil.” Charlie Savage at The New York Times discusses how the report “addresses concerns over President Obama’s plan to close the controversial prison.
     
    Yesterday, U.S. District Court Judge James E. Boasberg upheld Washington, D.C.’s strong post-Heller gun regulations, finding that they “pass constitutional scrutiny.” Ann E. Marimow at The Washington Post has the story.
     
    At The Week, Matt Bruenig argues in favor of term-limiting Supreme Court justices. In his article, Bruenig supports a proposal that would enable Supreme Court judges to serve single, staggered 18-year terms.
     
    Earlier this week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit struck down several sections of Wisconsin’s campaign finance law. At Concurring Opinions, Ronald K.L. Collins breaks down Wisconsin Right to Life v. Barland