Sort by: Date added | Date Published | Most Viewed

Headlines Tagged with ScotusSuit 308 headlines found


SMITH: Fantasyland at the Supreme Court

If Congress is to pass a law abridging free speech, the Court and the public deserve to know the reason. McCutcheon would be a good chance for the Court to reassert the primacy of political speech in the First Amendment.
National Review
added Oct 10, 2013 13:24

FISCHER: Did Scalia Really Say That? "Citizens United" Lurks Behind Supreme Court's Latest Money-in-Politics Case

after blowing a hole in the campaign finance infrastructure to allow unlimited independent expenditures, at least some Justices are trying to pull limits on direct contributions through the opening.
PR Watch
added Oct 10, 2013 13:20

LITHWICK: Poor Little Rich Guys / The Supreme Court clamors to protect the right of Richie Rich, Scrooge McDuck, and the Koch brothers to further corrupt American politics.

That leaves everything in the hands of Roberts who--precisely as has been predicted--has the choice to go big, go small, or go home. Again.
added Oct 10, 2013 04:30

EDITORIAL: Politicians for Sale

If the court is going to help protect American politics from becoming little more than “a disagreement among rich people,” as one observer put it, it should follow its own precedent and uphold the overall contribution limit.
New York Times
added Oct 10, 2013 04:25

Recommended Reading: McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission

“Whose expression is at stake when most people couldn’t even come near the limit?” asked Ginsburg. Scalia retorted, with his famous jolt of sarcasm, “I assume a law that only prohibits the speech of two percent of the country is okay.”
added Oct 10, 2013 03:56

Preview: 'Citizens United' -- The Sequel

Moyers talks with Yale Law School election and constitutional law professor Heather Gerken who warns that McCutcheon has the potential to be even worse than Citizens United. Political parties pay attention
added Oct 10, 2013 03:51

EDITORIAL: Uphold direct campaign donation limits: Our view

irate voters may decide that public financing and full disclosure are effective routes to good government. Both have passed the court's scrutiny. But until that happens, limits on donations remain a bulwark against bribery, legal and otherwise. The court
USA Today
added Oct 10, 2013 03:49

BOPP: Strike aggregate limits: Opposing view

the Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected the government's attempt to "mute the voices of affluent persons (to) equalize the ability to affect elections." And as to quid pro quo corruption, while the FEC agrees that contributing to nine candidates is non
USA Today
added Oct 10, 2013 03:46

Editorial: Justices' ruling on spending limits is government by the 1%, for the 1%

Against the backdrop of a government shutdown plotted and bankrolled by a small number of affluent industrialists, five U.S. Supreme Court justices appear poised to further emasculate limits on what the wealthiest Americans can spend to influence the pol
Detroit (MI) Free Press
added Oct 10, 2013 03:33

McGOUGH: On campaign contributions, don't split the baby, Mr. Chief Justice

presidents and party leaders in Congress would still have access to information showing that Mr. Moneybags had maxed out his contributions to every one of the party’s candidates. Wouldn’t such spectacular largess engender the same sense of gratitude -- an
Los Angeles Times
added Oct 10, 2013 03:29
Sign up for daily headlines All Headlines Featured Headlines U.S. Headlines International Headlines