Posted on 08/30/2009 10:23:14 AM PDT by neverdem
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court will cut short its summer break in early September to hear a new argument in a momentous case that could transform the way political campaigns are conducted.
The case, which arises from a minor political documentary called “Hillary: The Movie,” seemed an oddity when it was first argued in March. Just six months later, it has turned into a juggernaut with the potential to shatter a century-long understanding about the government’s ability to bar corporations from spending money to support political candidates.
The case has also deepened a profound split among liberals, dividing those who view government regulation of political speech as an affront to the First Amendment from those who believe that unlimited corporate campaign spending is a threat to democracy.
At issue is whether the court should overrule a 1990 decision, Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, which upheld restrictions on corporate spending to support or oppose political candidates. Re-arguments in the Supreme Court are rare, and the justices’ decision to call for one here may have been prompted by lingering questions about just how far campaign finance laws, including McCain-Feingold, may go in regulating campaign spending by corporations.
The argument, scheduled for Sept. 9, comes at a crucial historical moment, as corporations today almost certainly have more to gain or fear from government action than at any time since the New Deal.
The court’s order calling for re-argument, issued in June, has generated more than 40 friend-of-the-court briefs. As a group, they depict an array of strange bedfellows and uneasy alliances as they debate whether corporations should be free to spend millions of dollars to support the candidates of their choice.
The American Civil Liberties Union and its usual allies are on opposite sides, with the civil rights group fighting shoulder to...
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Hillary and Bill should be in jail. It’s that simple.
I would like to see McCain-Feingold completely overturned by the Supreme Court as being unconstitutional on the grounds of free speech provisions.
As long as Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad went with it.
Corporations do not deserve equal protection to citizens. Their immortality, limited liability, and dispersed risk constitutes a tilted playing field.
I'd like to see them do that and make a pre-emptive strike against the McCain-Kennedy Memorial Health Control Act of 2009 for being unconstitutional on the grounds of free-market provisions while they're at it.
(Sigh) A girl can dream, can't she?
At the first Supreme Court argument in March, a government lawyer, answering a hypothetical question, said the government could also make it a crime to distribute books advocating the election or defeat of political candidates so long as they were paid for by corporations and not their political action committees.That position seemed to astound several of the more conservative justices, and there were gasps in the courtroom.
“That’s pretty incredible,” said Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.
The discussion of book banning may have helped prompt the request for re-argument. In addition, some of the broader issues implicated by the case were only glancingly discussed in the first round of briefs, and some justices may have felt reluctant to take a major step without fuller consideration.
Ping
The only reason McCain-Feingold is law is because Bush signed it. At the time he was certain the Supreme Court would strike it down. Guess what?
Sometimes Bush could be a real moron.
Sometimes Bush could be a real moron .
I agree ,,,,, and then I think back ,,,,, Kerry was ALWAYS a moron .
lol...
Thanks for the heads up. I wish HILLARY! UNCENSORED would have gotten this kind of publicity. But at least well over 10 million people saw a 13-min clip on the internet. You’re welcome, witch.
...it has turned into a juggernaut with the potential to shatter a century-long understanding about the government’s ability to bar corporations from spending money to support political candidates.Just in time for all the gov't-owned businesses to bankroll the Demwits in 2010 and Obama's reelection in 2012. Thanks neverdem.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.