[EL] McCutcheon oral argument

[Rick Hasen]

More early reports:

Bloomberg 
<http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-08/campaign-contribution-caps-questioned-by-u-s-supreme-court.html>

WaPo 
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-skeptical-of-limits-on-federal-campaign-contributions/2013/10/08/1a1fca06-302c-11e3-9ccc-2252bdb14df5_story.html>

NY Times 
<http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/09/us/politics/supreme-court-weighs-campaign-contribution-limits.html?_r=0>"Chief 
Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who probably holds the crucial vote, 
indicated that he was inclined to strike down overall limits on 
contributions to several candidates, but not a separate overall limit on 
contributions to several political committees."

USA Today 
<http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/10/08/shaun-mccutcheon-supreme-court-campaign-finance-citizens-united/2939143/>

SCOTUSBlog 
<http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/10/argument-recap-how-is-political-influence-bought/>: 
"Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., who may well hold a decisive vote 
in this case, wondered aloud whether there was any way to deal with the 
problem of rich people writing very large checks that would not also 
inhibit wider participation in the money side of politics....Will the 
Court start all over with the issue of limiting campaign contributions, 
as it did four years ago with independent campaign spending, opening the 
money floodgates further?  Maybe, but there was almost nothing heard in 
Court on Tuesday that would suggest any such boldness."




On 10/8/13 8:37 AM, Rick Hasen wrote:
>
>
>     Early Reports on McCutcheon Oral Argument: Agreggate Limits Likely
>     to Fall, But Not Clear If Standard of Review Will Change
>     <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=55799>
>
> Posted on October 8, 2013 8:36 am 
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=55799>by Rick Hasen 
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> AP: 
> <http://bigstory.ap.org/article/campaign-contribution-caps-issue-high-court>
>
>     Chief Justice John Roberts said that telling an individual he can
>     give the legal maximum of $2,600 per election to only a handful of
>     candidates for Congress "seems to me a very direct restriction" on
>     First Amendment rights.
>
>     The court did not appear willing to call into question all
>     contribution limits in its first major campaign finance case since
>     2010.
>
> HuffPo 
> <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/08/mccutcheon-v-fec_n_4059180.html?utm_hp_ref=tw>
>
> More to come
>
> I've explained in /Slate / 
> <http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/09/campaign_finance_at_the_supreme_court_is_mccutcheon_v_fec_the_next_citizens.html>that 
> the most important question is not IF the limits fall but HOW.  A 
> broad ruling could endanger /all/ campaign contribution limits.
>
> Also, to understand /McCutcheon/ you've got to know the history of 
> /Buckley v. Valeo. ///I tell its story in /The Nine Lives of //Buckley 
> v. Valeo / 
> <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1593253>(in First 
> Amendment Stories (Garnett and Koppelman eds.)
>
> -- 
> Rick Hasen
> Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
> UC Irvine School of Law
> 401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
> Irvine, CA 92697-8000
> 949.824.3072 - office
> 949.824.0495 - fax
> rhasen at law.uci.edu
> hhttp://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
> http://electionlawblog.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election

-- 
Rick Hasen
Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
UC Irvine School of Law
401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
Irvine, CA 92697-8000
949.824.3072 - office
949.824.0495 - fax
rhasen at law.uci.edu
hhttp://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
http://electionlawblog.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20131008/cfd8ef9d/attachment.html>