Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Legal News Blogs -> JURIST - The Paper Chase

Legal News

: JURIST - The Paper Chase

Supreme Court rehears campaign finance arguments

By Bernard Hibbitts (editor) and University of Pittsburgh School of Law students.

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court reheard oral arguments Wednesday in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission to determine whether two precedent cases that uphold restraints on corporate election spending should be overturned. The two cases, Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, upheld the facial validity of Section 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), which the Federal Election Commission (FEC) argues allows them to regulate the release of and advertising for a 90-minute documentary questioning then-Senator Hillary Clinton's qualifications to serve as US president. Petitioner Citizens United, a non-profit conservative advocacy corporation that produced the film, appealed on broad First Amendment grounds a decision by the US District Court for the District of Columbia, which held that the movie was "electioneering communication" within the meaning of BCRA. At oral argument, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito seemed open to removing federal limits on corporate campaign spending, while Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor implied that they would issue a much narrower ruling. Justices Clarence Thomas, Anthony Kennedy, and Antonin Scalia have already said that they support overturning Austin and McConnell. The Court originally heard oral arguments in March, but ordered a rehearing at the end of the 2008 term. The government had argued the Court's decisions in McConnell and Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life allowed them to regulate the video because it was funded by a corporation and could not reasonably be interpreted as anything other than an appeal to vote against Clinton. Citizens United argued that the movie was the kind of "robust, uninhibited debate about a subject of intense political interest" that the First Amendment was designed to protect.

Full post as published by JURIST - The Paper Chase on September 09, 2009 (boomark / email).