Litigation

Ideas, Trends in a Post-?Citizens United? Era

By Peter Hardin

“Democracy” dollars? New court attacks on surviving campaign finance restrictions? As players inside and outside of politics shape responses to the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling, newspapers documented one legislative proposal and one litigation trend, both tied to a changing world of campaign finance regulation.

In the Wall Street Journal, law professor Bruce Ackerman of Yale and Democratic Rep. David Wu of Oregon called for giving ordinary citizens the financial ability to wield greater clout in the political marketplace. They propose a refundable $50 tax credit that citizens could give to federal campaigns in presidential election years, with less in off-years. Their thinking about these proposed “democracy” dollars:

“Democracy dollars is no panacea. It does not promise a political utopia purged of special interests. It simply allows ordinary Americans to compete effectively with corporations, giving them a realistic chance to shape the political debate long before they cast their ballots in November.”

In USA Today, reporter Fredreka Schouten chronicled “a series of court challenges coast-to-coast [that] could unravel other campaign-finance restrictions ? including limits on contributions to political groups.” In a case set for argument before a Washington, D.C. appeals panel Wednesday, judges will be asked whether to uphold a $5,000 cap on annual donations by an individual to an independent political group, SpeechNow.

Steve Simpson, a lawyer with the Institute for Justice–a libertarian public-interest law firm–told the newspaper, “I’m certainly emboldened” by the high court’s decision in Citizens United. The Institute is representing SpeechNow. More details about that case were reported by SCOTUSblog in a post entitled, “First Sequel to Citizens United.”

In Maryland, meanwhile, some lawmakers were preparing a legislative package to respond to the decision, the Baltimore Sun reported. State Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller, who was not part of that effort, raised concerns publicly that the ruling could lead to corporate influence on court decisions through big spending on judicial elections. Miller said that should “shock the conscience of the public.”

Other dispatches or opinion about last week’s decision included Clarence Page in the Chicago Tribune on “How companies became ‘persons’;” Howard Schweber in Huffington Post on “Citizens United: Less Important, More Important, and (Even) Weirder Than You Think;” and Ronald Dworkin in the New York Review of Books on “The ‘Devastating’ Decision.” You also can check The “Daily Show” for its take on the “Supreme Corp” by clicking here.

Full post as published by The Gavel on January 27, 2010 (boomark / email).