Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Litigation Blogs -> How Appealing

Litigation

: How Appealing

"Justices, 5-4, Reject Corporate Spending Limit"

"Justices, 5-4, Reject Corporate Spending Limit": Adam Liptak has this article today in The New York Times. The newspaper also contains an article headlined "Lobbyists Get Potent Weapon in Campaign Finance Ruling" and an editorial entitled "The Court's Blow to Democracy."

In today's edition of The Washington Post, Robert Barnes and Dan Eggen report that "Supreme Court rejects limits on corporate spending on political campaigns." Barnes also has a news analysis headlined "High court shows it might be willing to act boldly." The newspaper also contains an article headlined "Citizens United used 'Hillary: The Movie' to take on McCain-Feingold"; an editorial entitled "The Supreme Court removes important limits on campaign finance"; and an op-ed by Michael Waldman entitled "Campaign finance ruling reflects Supreme Court's growing audacity."

In today's edition of The Los Angeles Times, David G. Savage reports that "Supreme Court OKs unlimited corporate spending on elections; The justices overturn a century of U.S. electoral law by a 5-4 vote; Millions of extra dollars are expected to start flowing from big business to Republican candidates." The newspaper also contains articles headlined "Court ruling on campaign spending could pay off for GOP; Unfettered corporate contributions, coming on top of the Massachusetts Senate vote, may spell a double whammy for Democrats in congressional midterm elections" and "Supreme Court's ruling on corporate campaign spending could affect state races; Sen. Barbara Boxer's reelection campaign will largely be the testing ground for the new rules in California," along with an editorial entitled "The 1st Amendment and corporate campaigning: Thursday's U.S. Supreme Court ruling that rolls back limits on corporate political spending could strengthen the hand of special interests" and an op-ed by Erwin Chemerinsky entitled "Conservatives embrace judicial activism in campaign finance ruling; The Supreme Court's decision in favor of corporate spending in elections makes previous rhetoric laughable."

In USA Today, Fredreka Schouten and Joan Biskupic have a front page article headlined "It's a new era for campaign spending; High court rejects limits on well-funded backers." Biskupic also has an article headlined "In dissent, a weary Stevens bemoans changed court." You can click here for a more detailed online version of the article about Justice Stevens. And the newspaper contains an editorial entitled "Court's campaign ruling threatens the public interest; It's hard to see what good can come from unleashing companies, unions."

In The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin reports that "Court Kills Limits on Corporate Politicking." The newspaper also contains an article headlined "Big Donors Plan Boost in Campaign Spending" and an editorial entitled "A Free Speech Landmark: Campaign-finance reform meets the Constitution."

David Lightman, Margaret Talev and Michael Doyle of McClatchy Newspapers report that "Ruling could magnify special interests' role in U.S. politics." Doyle also has an article headlined "Who's activist now? In election spending case, conservatives." And an article reports that "For longtime campaign limit foe, court's ruling is a victory."

Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor has an article headlined "Supreme Court: Campaign-finance limits violate free speech; The Supreme Court campaign finance ruling on Thursday means corporations can spend freely on political ads leading up to elections; The Thursday decision invalidates a part of 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign-finance reform law that sought to limit corporate influence." The publication also has an editorial entitled "Supreme Court opens the money gates; By allowing more corporate and union money in federal campaigns, the high court risks corrupting lawmaking; Watchdogs must stay alert."

Tony Mauro of The National Law Journal reports that "Critics, Dissenters Predict Wave of Corporate Money After Campaign Finance Ruing."

The Washington Times reports that "High court unleashes political ad spending."

The Philadelphia Inquirer reports that "Justices shift campaign-finance rules."

And today's broadcast of NPR's "Morning Edition" contained audio segments entitled "High Court Issues Key Ruling On Campaign Finance" (featuring Nina Totenberg) and "Honest Ads May Be By-Product Of Landmark Ruling."

Full post as published by How Appealing on January 22, 2010 (boomark / email).