• 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

« D.C. Appeals Court Tackles Attorney Relationships with Non-Clients | Main | Covington Adds Second Former Member of Congress to Lobbying Roster »

March 13, 2013



I don't see what amuses Carl Edman.
Mostly, because it isn't even there.

Not once but twice in this article does Feingold mention corporations. Both times, he not only says that it DOESN'T matter whether speech is through a corporation or not, but he also says why it doesn't matter. After all, he (and everybody) knows that we always did have PACs.

My problem is that once the "rich people" choose to funnel their contributions through corporations, they can select a corporation with no donor transparency.

Citizens United exists for no other reason than to evade the donation disclosure laws. At least PACs had some degree of regulation in the public interest.

Carl Edman

It is somewhat amusing to see Feingold, who denounces Citizens United for recognizing that individuals do not lose First Amendment protection just because they act through a corporate form, appear in the same forum as Ellsberg, whose legal fame was founded on the recognition of the First Amendment rights of the New York Times corporation. Surely they argued that inconsistency?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad