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

[Smith, Brad]

In the FWIW category, it's actually SpeechNow.org v. FEC that gives individuals the right to pool their resources without limits to make IEs. One could say SpeechNow.org followed naturally from CU, but no more than it followed naturally from Buckley itself, and from Justice Blackmun's controlling opinion in California Medical Association v. FEC. It took SpeechNow to bring the regulatory regime into line.


Bradley A. Smith

Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault

   Professor of Law

Capital University Law School

303 E. Broad St.

Columbus, OH 43215

614.236.6317

http://law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx

________________________________
From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] on behalf of Thomas J. Cares [Tom at TomCares.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 4:04 PM
To: Election Law
Subject: Re: [EL] Clinton's "litmus test" for SCOTUS nominees

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/d22f66b8/attachment.html>