Courts Roll Back Limits on Spending in Election Law

Courts Roll Back Limits on Spending in Election Law

by David D. Kirkpatrick


WASHINGTON - Even before a landmark Supreme Court ruling on campaign finance law expected within days, a series of other court decisions is reshaping the political battlefield by freeing corporations, unions and other interest groups from many of the restrictions on their advertising about issues and candidates.


Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey said the Republican Party would benefit from a decision loosening spending rules. (Stephen Crowley/The New York Times)

Legal experts and political operatives say the cases roll back campaign spending rules to the years before Watergate. The end of decades-old restrictions could unleash a torrent of negative advertisements, help cash-poor Republicans in a pivotal year and push President Obama to bring in more money for his party.

If the Supreme Court, as widely expected, rules against core elements of the existing limits, Democrats say they will try to enact new laws to reinstate the restrictions in time for the midterm elections in November. And advocates of stricter campaign finance laws say they hope the developments will prod the president to fulfill a campaign promise to update the presidential campaign financing system, even though it would diminish his edge as incumbent.

Many legal experts say they expect the court to use its imminent ruling, in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, to eliminate the remaining restrictions on advertisements for or against candidates paid for by corporations, unions and advocacy organizations. (The case centers on whether spending restrictions apply to a conservative group's documentary, "Hillary: The Movie.")

Even if the court rules more narrowly, legal experts and political advocates say that the 2010 elections will bring the first large-scale application of previous court decisions that have all but stripped away those restrictions. Though the rulings have not challenged the bans on direct corporate contributions to parties and candidates, political operatives say that as a practical matter the rulings and a deadlock at the Federal Election Commission have already opened wide latitude for independent groups to advocate for and against candidates.

more...

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/01/09-0

If politicians can be bought, then the voters should be allowed to sell their votes.

Fair is fair.

WhY did you think that pork was for? :)

I've been loosely following this nonsense since the Buckley decision set a serious course on removing all restraints on political fundraising, and this could well be the end of even pretending to control it.

Aside from trying to raise more money than the other guys, i really have no idea what we're going to do when this sinks in-- there's no hope at all now for federally financed elections, even though some states have fooled around with the idea.