"Rich Candidate Expected To Win Again: Does the Supreme Court care more about free speech for the wealthy than about political corruption?"

My new Jurisprdudence essay at Slate is now available. It discusses McComish v. Bennett (oral argument in the Supreme Court on Monday). Here is the conclusion:

But Davis shouldn't carry the day here. Arizona did not enact its system to "level the playing field," and that is not its effect. Instead, Arizona adopted a public financing system to deal with well-publicized corruption scandal, AzScam, and it incorporated matching funds into the system because it is one of the only ways to create a viable campaign finance system. Rational politicians simply won't opt into public financing if they expect to be vastly outspent by their opponents.

If you are looking for a common thread between the "more speech is better" theory underlying Citizens United and an expected "more speech is unfair" ruling for the challengers in McComish, it is this: Five conservatives justices on the Supreme Court appear to have no problem with the wealthy using their resources to win elections--even if doing so raises the danger of increased corruption of the political system.

"Wisconsin Court Race Turns Into A Political Dogfight"

A must-listen NPR report on now a state judicial election is becoming a proxy for the fight over public unions in Wisconsin---and the interaction of the new public financing system for judicial elections there combining with outside independent money.

"Black Caucus Preps for Michigan Redistricting"

The Detroit News reports.

"The GOP's Census Problem"

"The Fix" reports.

"Activists in 23 States Coming Together in Texas to 'True The Vote'"

I'm keeping an eye on this group and whether its influence will extend beyond Texas.

BNA Previews McComish

Here.

"Disclosure requirements would discourage political speech"

Sean Parnell has written this interesting commentary for The Hill.

LAT on RGA and RNC Fundraising Methods under Haley Barbour

Check it out.

Supreme Court Hears Interesting Petition Clause Case

SCOTUSBlog wraps up oral argument in Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri. Given my current work on lobbying, I'm very interested to see if the Court will give independent meaning to the Petition Clause in this case.

Read the Respondent's Brief in Nevada Commission on Ethics v. Carrigan

You can find the brief at this link [Disclosure: I am one of the counsel on Mr. Carrigan's brief]. Here is the Question Presented from the brief:

Petitioner Nevada Commission on Ethics censured an elected member of a city council for voting on one of the most important and controversial questions before the council--a question that dominated the contemporaneous election. The Ethics Commission held that the councilmember was disqualified because a key campaign volunteer had lobbied the city council on the issue. The question presented is what level of First Amendment scrutiny applies to Nevada's unique disqualification provision.

Text & History Previews McComish Case

Here.

"Impending decision by D.C. judge has implications for voter ID in Texas"

The American Independent reports.

"Huntsman Still Voting from Governor's Mansion"

Maybe he should talk to Rahm.

Ethan Leib to Fordham

So reports the Faculty Lounge. Ethan does very interesting work in a number of areas, including legislation. Good luck!

"Former Ensign Aide Charged With Violating Conflict of Interest Laws"

WSJ's "Washington Wire" reports.

"Citizens Get United"

The Advocate reports.

"The 26th Amendment and the Progressive Constitution"

See this Text & History blog post.