SCOTUSblog here
offers a very nuanced analysis of the issues in the NRA's stay petition, including
the question whether the NRA would be exempted from the electioneering communications
provisions as an MCFL organization. (The post concludes there is
a serious danger it would not under current caselaw, a conclusion with which
I agree.) The post also notes that the only organization so far to oppose
the NRA are the NRLC and Club for Growth (James Madison Center) plaintiffs:
they don't want the primary definition to come into effect, but are no fans
whatsoever of Judge Leon's alternative.
The fact that there is not a single entity urging the lower court or the
Supreme Court to enforce Judge Leon's ruling should be a pretty strong signal
to Judge Leon that something went wrong with his interpretation. Does that
mean that the stay will be granted as to the electioneering provision? Perhaps
not. To stay that provision alone would put NO issue advocacy provision in
effect during the pendence of the appeal, something Judge Kollar-Kotelly may
oppose. To stay the entire ruling would restore the PRIMARY issue advocacy
definition, something Judge Henderson may oppose. One wonders if the reports
of the personal disagreements among the judges (disagreements evident in the
opinions' footnotes) is making it difficult for them to decide the stay issue
as well.
The Washington Post offers this
report on the NRA stay request.
Mark Shields on the
Democrats and soft money See here.
--
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