Litigation

Citizens United: Fallout for States, Judicial Elections

By Peter Hardin

After the first wave of commentary about the national impact of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, its potential fallout for the states, and for judicial elections in the states,  is getting more attention.

The ABA Journal, in an article touching on the potential impact for judicial races, quoted Bert Brandenburg, JAS executive director. “This ruling pours gasoline on the fire of special-interest money that has been overtaking judicial elections,” Brandenburg said.

The resulting challenges for states nationwide–from litigation or efforts to repeal existing state law, to an expectation of heightened corporate spending on judicial elections–were outlined in a  New York Times article, headlined “24 States’ Laws Open to Attack After Campaign Finance Ruling.” Potential impact  also was examined in these news reports: a Colorado GOP lawsuit to overturn state limits on corporate and union expenditures, in Politico; prospects for Ohio’s ban on corporate campaign spending, in the Associated Press; on campaign spending in Michigan, in the Detroit News.

For further information about Citizens United,  check out these earlier Gavel Grab posts.

Full post as published by The Gavel on January 26, 2010 (boomark / email).