[EL] Clinton's "litmus test" for SCOTUS nominees

[Thomas J. Cares]

Is it possible her sentiment is accurate without threat to Buckley?

My understanding of the framework, pre-CU, (correct me if I'm wrong), was
that billionaires could spend unlimited amounts *as individuals*, but we're
very limited ($5k, I recall) in how much they can give to PACs. I believe
the constitutional sentiment here was "you have a right to (fund) your
speech, without limit, but not other peoples."

If CU was reversed, billionaires would be reburdened with spending their
money themselves, perhaps having to own it in disclosure "paid for by
Charles Koch", rather than just give it to Karl Rove's PAC.

...which I'm thinking is what Hillary was alluding to


-Thomas Cares



--
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20150519/9a72a021/attachment.html>