Tag Archives: campaign financing

Citizens United: How Justice Kennedy has paved the way for the return of soft money – Slate Magazine

Citizens United: How Justice Kennedy has paved the way for the return of soft money – Slate Magazine.

Super-Soft Money

How Justice Kennedy paved the way for “SuperPACS” and the return of soft money.

Leave a comment

Filed under campaign contributions, elections, ethics (in politics), issues, Supreme Court, USA

Political groups, now free of limits, spending heavily ahead of 2012 – The Washington Post

Political groups, now free of limits, spending heavily ahead of 2012 – The Washington Post.

A contentious special election in Upstate New Yorkhas quickly become a test run of sorts for 2012 as outside political groups pump more than $2 million into an obscure three-way House contest.Republican and conservative groups, led by the Karl Rove-backed American Crossroads, have flooded the airwaves with ads attacking the Democratic and tea party candidates vying to replace former Republican congressman Chris Lee. Democratic groups and unions have scrambled to catch up, with their own ads attacking the official GOP nominee, though they remain outspent by conservatives in the days ahead of the Tuesday election.

[…]

Read the full story here: The Washington Post

Leave a comment

Filed under news & comments, notes and musings from a big country, politics, USA

New breed of ‘super PACs,’ other independent groups could define 2012 campaign – The Washington Post

New breed of ‘super PACs,’ other independent groups could define 2012 campaign – The Washington Post.

One commercial accuses the president of worsening the deficit and says, “It’s time to take away Obama’s blank check.” Another attacks Republican tax and Medicare policies, saying, “We can’t rebuild Americaif they tear down the middle class.”So begins the shadow campaign of 2012, in which a new breed of “super PACs” and other independent groups are poised to spend more money than ever to sway federal elections.

The first major ads look as if they came from a regular campaign. But they were produced and aired by groups independent of Obama and his GOP rivals.

[…]

Read the full story here: The Washington Post

Leave a comment

Filed under news & comments, notes and musings from a big country, politics, USA

Supreme Court strikes Arizona’s ‘matching funds’ to publicly financed candidates – The Washington Post

Supreme Court strikes Arizona’s ‘matching funds’ to publicly financed candidates – The Washington Post.

The Supreme Court on Monday struck down part of Arizona’s public campaign financelaw, the court’s latest decision that the right of political speech trumps government’s attempts to restrain the power of money in elections.The court rejected Arizona’s system of providing “matching funds” to candidates who face big-spending opponents or opposition groups. The system has been used in every statewide and legislative election since voters approved it in 1998, after a period in which the state told the court a “seamless interplay between fundraising and lawmaking cast a web of perceived corruption over the Arizona capitol.”

Read the full story here: Washington Post

Leave a comment

Filed under news & comments, notes and musings from a big country, politics, USA

Challenge to notorious Supreme Court campaign finance ruling in Citizens United brewing in Montana | The American Independent

Challenge to notorious Supreme Court campaign finance ruling brewing in Montana

By Kyle Daly | 05.06.11 | 5:35 pm

The Center for Responsive Politics revealed Thursday that corporate campaign spending has skyrocketed since the Supreme Court’s Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission decision in January 2010. The report comes at the same time as the first major state-level challenge to the controversial ruling.

In the run-up to the 2008 election, Citizens United, a conservative organization that has since aligned itself with the tea party, produced an attack film with the on-the-nose title Hillary: The Movie. When a D.C. court ruled that advertising and widely screening Hillary would be a violation of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law, Citizens United took the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In a 5-4 ruling, the Court ultimately determined that corporate expenditures on “electioneering” constitute a form of protected free speech, and that neither state nor federal law can bar corporations or non-profits from using general treasury funds to support or oppose a candidate.  At the time, former U.S. Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.), who lost his re-election bid in 2010 to tea partier Daniel Webster, called Citizens United “the worst Supreme Court decision since the Dred Scott case.”

Reda the full story here:  Challenge to notorious Supreme Court campaign finance ruling in Citizens United brewing in Montana | The American Independent.

Leave a comment

Filed under news & comments, politics, USA

Unabhängigkeit der Justiz (2): Nachtrag

Zu den Geschehnissen in Iowa, wo bei den vergangenen Wahlen drei Richter des staatlichen obersten Gerichtshofs abgewählt bzw. nicht wieder gewählt worden sind, weil sie in einem Urteil gleichgeschlechtliche Ehen für verfassungskonform erklärt hatten und wo den übrigen vier Richtern, die diesmal nicht zur Wahl standen, aus dem gleichen Grund ein Amtsenthebungsverfahren droht [siehe auch hier: Unabhängigkeit der Justiz (2) – oder: Man kann die Demokratie auch übertreiben], hier noch ein Nachtrag:

Der Gouverneur des Staates Iowa hat sich gegen ein Amtsenthebungsverfahren [impeachment] ausgesprochen, was die Befürworter aber nicht im geringsten anficht.

Die Kampagne gegen die Wiederwahl der drei zur Wahl stehenden Richter wurde mit fast einer Million Dollar an Spendengeldern von Organisationen außerhalb des Staates Iowa finanziert.

Leave a comment

Filed under notes and musings from a big country, politics, USA

Unabhängigkeit der Justiz (5): The Roberts Court

Zur Begriffsbestimmung: “Roberts Court” meint den obersten Gerichtshof der USA [US Supreme Court] unter dem Vorsitz von John G. Roberts.

Ein Artikel in der New York Times vom 18. Dezember 2010 [zum Artikel geht es hier: NYT] zeigt auf, dass das oberste Gericht unter seiner Führung (wesentlich) mehr Fälle zur Entscheidung angenommen hat, die die Interessen des “Big Business” betreffen, sondern dass auch die Entscheidungen zugunsten der Wirtschaft [61% unter Roberts gegenüber 46% unter seinem Vorgänger William Rehnquist] erheblich zugenommen haben. Diese Entscheidungen fallen übrigens häufig 5:4 aus, also genau entlang der Spaltung des obersten Gerichtshofs in liberale und konservative Richter.

Der Artikel führt das u.A. auf den Einfluss des US Chamber of Commerce [also der nationalen Handelskammer] zurück, die vor einigen Jahren damit begonnen hat, ganz besonders auf Wirtschaftsrecht spezialisierte Anwälte in Fällen vor dem obersten Gerichsthof einzusetzen. Ganz besonders interessant – oder auch bedenklich –  in diesem Zusammenhang: das US Chamber of Commerce hat im vergangenen Wahlkampf massiv republikanische Kandidaten bzw. die republikanische Partei unterstützt.

Leave a comment

Filed under notes and musings from a big country, USA