"After the Other Shoe Drops"

I've written this blog post at The American Interest Online. It is a follow up to my American Interest article on Citizens United in the July/August issue. In that article, written in June, I wrote:

But it is easier to understate the importance of the case. First, it has become apparent that corporations and trade associations, such as the Chamber of Commerce, now feel as though a cloud has been lifted on their election-related activities. What was of questionable legality before is clearly legal now. Full-blown corporate involvement in Federal elections likely awaits the striking down of rules prohibiting corporations from making contributions to independent expenditure committees, so that corporations will not risk losing their customers by identifying with one side or the other in a candidate election. They will hide behind groups with innocuous names like "Americans for a Strong America" and other such anodyne labels.

Brooks Jackson Fact Checks the Democrats' Chamber Claims

Here. I am a huge fan of Brooks Jackson (especially this now-dated book), and miss his reporting on CNN.

"Analysis: Door to big, undisclosed campaign contributions swung open before Citizens United decision"

William Freivogel offers this analysis as a counterpoint to this NPR Fresh Air segment.

"Wis. Senate Debate Focuses on Free Speech"

The Johnson-Feingold debate tackles CU and disclosure.

NYT Turns Its Attention to "American Future Fund"

A key passage: "But interviews found that the group was started with seed money from at least one influential Iowa businessman: Bruce Rastetter, a co-founder and the chief executive of one of the nation's larger ethanol companies, Hawkeye Energy Holdings, and a rising force in state Republican politics. And hints of a possible agenda emerge from a look at the politicians on the American Future Fund's hit list. Most have seats on a handful of legislative committees with a direct say in the ethanol industry."

"A Lone Stance on Ad Spending; Montana Is Seeking to Uphold Campaign-Funding Curbs Jeopardized by a Supreme Court Ruling"

The WSJ offers this fascinating report.

"Ninth Circuit Sanity on Felon Disenfranchisement"

von Spakovsky blogs.

"SPIN METER: Foreign money in politics? Not proven"

AP offers this report.

Federal District Court in Hawaii Issues Preliminary Injunction Barring Enforcement of Contribution Limits as to Independent Expenditure Committees; Court Rejects Attack on Contribution Limits to Committees that Make Contributions Directly to Candidates

You can find the federal district court's 26-page order here. See also this story.

"The 17th Amendment resurfaces as a campaign issue"

"The Fix" reports.

Brad Smith Responds to My Slate Piece

Here. To be clear, my proposal for random auditing would apply only to groups that engage in making independent expenditures and/or electioneering communications on a large scale, and subject to an as-applied exemption for groups that could be subject to government or other harassment. In addition, the information of the audits would not be made public, except when illegality is discovered.

"Foes question rule requiring city runoffs"

Interesting story from Arizona.

"Shutting Up Business: Democrats unleash the IRS and Justice on donors to their political opponents."

The WSJ offers this editorial.

-- 
Rick Hasen
William H. Hannon Distinguished Professor of Law
Loyola Law School
919 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
http://electionlawblog.org