More BCRA commentary and news Here are some newspaper editorials on the lower court decision: Arizona Republic; Dayton Daily News; Las Vegas Review Journal; Palm Beach Post; San Francisco Chronicle; and Seattle Post Intelligencer.
Phil Kent has this Washington Times op-ed. See also this analysis in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel.

 Roll Call offers "Reform Ruling Sparks Spin War" (registration required) (I've been trying to send the full text to the list, so far without success---it might come through later). Although the article is focused on the spin question about the meaning of section 323(e), it offers the following connection between that question and seeking a stay:

"There is a question of who is going to file an application for a stay, if anybody," remarked one legal expert.

Initially, defenders of BCRA had indicated they would move quickly to ask for a stay of the opinion, a move that would potentially leave the law intact until the Supreme Court decides the issue.

But they appeared to pull back from pushing for a stay this week as they assessed the 1,600-plus-page decision from the three-judge panel, and sources indicated there may be a strategic advantage in not immediately making such a move.

Beyond the reality that stays are extraordinarily unusual and difficult to get, to say nothing of the fact that it would heap extra work on the court, some observers noted that asking the court to stay could detract from assertions by McCain-Feingold supporters that the mammoth court ruling was a victory of sorts for them.

A reform "victory?" Don Simon of Common Cause responds to my post here on whether reformers have claimed and should claim "victory" on the issue advocacy ruling of Judge Leon:

Rick - "Victory" is your word here, not mine. Nowhere does the Common Cause analysis claim the Title II ruling was a "victory." It simply describes what the court did - it "upheld" a regulation of sham issue ads that is "more comprehensive" than the time-frame test that was "struck down."

Whether one characterizes sustaining the modified fall-back test as a "victory" or "defeat" is quite another question. I'm sure, however, you will agree that, from the reform perspective, the district court's unequivocal rejection of the magic words test as a constitutional imperative is in fact a "victory," however one feels about the particular test the district court ended up endorsing.

I did not mean to single out Common Cause---many in the reform community have focused on the "victory" of the rejection of the magic words test, but not what that victory really means. I suppose it would be nice to hear some genuine concern raised about the constitutional problems with the district court's ruling. But perhaps that is too much to expect for parties that must maintain a certain position in litigation.

-- 
Rick Hasen
Professor of Law and William M. Rains Fellow
Loyola Law School
919 South Albany Street
Los Angeles, CA  90015-1211
(213)736-1466
(213)380-3769 - fax
rick.hasen@lls.edu
http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.html