Contributors

  • Andrew Ramonas
    Lobbying Reporter
  • Beth Frerking
    Editor in Chief
  • David Brown
    Vice President/Editor, ALM
  • Diego Radzinschi
    Photo Editor
  • Jenna Greene
    Senior Reporter
  • Marcia Coyle
    Chief Washington Correspondent
  • Mike Scarcella
    Washington Bureau Chief
  • Todd Ruger
    Capitol Hill Reporter
  • Tony Mauro
    Supreme Court Correspondent
  • Zoe Tillman
    D.C. Courts Reporter

« Morning Wrap | Main | The Citizens United Argument, by the Numbers »

September 11, 2009

Comments

Schlitzie


ACTUALLY, THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAW SHOULD BE SCRAPPED. AS SEEN IN THIS LAST ELECTION, OBAMA BOUGHT THE ELECTION USING 200 MILLION IN DONATIONS IN SPITE OF THE FEINGOLD/MC CAIN LAW. REAL CAMPAIGN FINANCE SHOULD HAVE SPENDING LIMITS(without loopholes)WITHOUT LIMITING FREEDOM OF SPEECH. YOU KNOW..... THE FIRST AMENDMENT

Joe


It is not too unusual that a liberal justice, often Justice Breyer, steps in and tries to find a way to decide a likely conservative result in some narrow fashion. Strange bedfellows or not. Stevens did seem particularly forceful on the point here.

The libs also don't seem to gung ho about the union limits either. Strategic or otherwise, Stevens' gambit does underline that this law is woefully overbroad.


Brett Bellmore

I'm kind of dubious about the proposition that business corporations were the main target of the legislation. It looks to me like they were cover for going after groups like the NRA, which tend to be less circumspect about running ads that piss off members of Congress.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad

Advertisements