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

[Sean Parnell]

And if memory serves correct, SpeechNow.org was not a corporation, it was an
unincorporated association (an actual legally defined organizational status
under DC law, again if my memory is correct). 

 

That may or may not be determinant or even relevant, but it does suggest
that wiping Citizens United alone off the books may not be enough to
eliminate 'SuperPACs.'

 

 

Sean Parnell

President, Impact Policy Management, LLC

571-289-1374 (c)

sean at impactpolicymanagement.com

Alexandria, Virginia

 

 

 

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
[mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Smith,
Brad
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 4:16 PM
To: Thomas J. Cares; Election Law
Subject: Re: [EL] Clinton's "litmus test" for SCOTUS nominees

 

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/20150519/235c7a5a/attachment.html>