| Subject: [EL] Electionlawblog news and commentary 1/5/11 |
| From: Rick Hasen |
| Date: 1/5/2011, 7:43 AM |
| To: Election Law |
You'll hear the error around the two minute mark here.
The graphic lists the case as Citizens United v. FCC. Oh
boy. For the record, Citizens United v. FEC
dealt only with corporate independent expenditures
favoring or opposing candidates, and the Court did not touch the
corporate ban on contributions directly to candidates.
(Video via SCOTUSBlog.)
Sen. Mitch McConnell has written this
WaPo oped on filibuster reform.
John Tanner has written this
oped for the Austin-American Statesman.
The NY Times offers this
report.
As my colleague Doug NeJaime explains,
the CA Supreme Court may address this question certified from
the Ninth Circuit in the Prop. 8 (gay marriage) litigation. Adam
Winkler tweets
that regardless of what the CA Supremes decide, the 9th Circuit
may still find no standing under Article III of the U.S.
Constitution.
UPDATE: MORE,
from Ethan Leib.
The
latest from Chicago.
Here.