background preloader

Citizen United

Facebook Twitter

Samuel Alito, Supreme Court Justice, Takes On Citizens United Critics. Justice Stevens on Citizens United. Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens blasted the Court's Citizens United ruling in a speech on Wednesday.

Justice Stevens on Citizens United

HuffPost's Mike Sacks reports, "In a speech at the University of Arkansas' Clinton School of Public Service, Stevens challenged his former colleagues to defend Alito's 'not true' moment by reconciling the court's sweeping language in Citizens United that the First Amendment 'generally prohibits the suppression of political speech based on the speaker's identity,' with its subsequent decision -- made without briefing, argument, or written opinion -- to uphold a ban on campaign spending by non-citizens. Alito's reaction, Stevens said, 'persuade[s] me that that in due course it will be necessary for the court to issue an opinion explicitly crafting an exception that will create a crack in the foundation of the Citizens United majority opinion.' The Stevens speech comes right before the Court will consider the Montana challenge to Citizens United.

Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. Note: The PDF files on this web site may be viewed or printed using Acrobat Reader from Adobe. Documents marked [Word] may be read using Microsoft Word from Microsoft. On March 27, 2002, President Bush signed into law the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), Public Law No. 107-155. The BCRA contains many substantial and technical changes to the federal campaign finance law. The Commission's implementation of BCRA included rulemakings (listed below) on the following topics: Most of the changes became effective November 6, 2002; however, changes involving contribution limits took effect with regard to contributions made on or after January 1, 2003.

How citizens can unite to undo Citizens United. By Laurence H. Tribe - How Can We Fix the Constitution? By Laurence H.

How citizens can unite to undo Citizens United. By Laurence H. Tribe - How Can We Fix the Constitution?

Tribe|Posted Wednesday, June 13, 2012, at 01:55:06 PM ET Casino tycoon Sheldon Adelson and family contributed $20 million to Newt Gingrich's super PAC, Winning Our Future. Photograph by Roslan Rahman/AFP/Getty Images. This month, some of Slate’s favorite legal eagles are proposing their favorite Constitutional amendments, in the service of our effort, with Me the People author Kevin Bleyer, to rewrite the founding document. We have three proposals about campaigns and elections: Today from Laurence H. Campaign Finance (New Amendment) When Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, joined by Justice Stephen Breyer, recently called attention to “the huge sums currently deployed to buy candidates’ allegiance” as cause to revisit Citizens United, it was easy to see why. In the two years since the Supreme Court struck down key federal campaign finance restrictions, super PACs have reshaped American democracy.

We want your ideas for fixing the Constitution. Elections: décision de la Cour suprême - Etats-Unis - Actualités. States back Montana in Citizens United campaign finance fight. Nearly half of US states have thrown their weight behind a legal defence of local laws restricting corporate money in politics by asking the supreme court to revisit its widely-criticised ban on similar national legislation.

States back Montana in Citizens United campaign finance fight

The states filed a brief with the supreme court on Monday in support of a century-old law in Montana – the Corrupt Practices Act – against companies pumping money into elections. The law was struck down by a Montana court following the US supreme court ruling two years ago in the Citizens United case, which lifted most restrictions on corporations spending money on political advertising.

However, the Montana supreme court has since upheld the state law, putting it in conflict with the Citizens United ruling. If the supreme court agrees to take up the case, it is not likely to overturn Citizens United, but it could hand down a decision that would give state legislatures greater leeway in limiting corporate money in politics. "A problem does exist.