{"id":479594,"date":"2010-03-27T13:15:38","date_gmt":"2010-03-27T17:15:38","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/firedoglake.com\/?p=75405"},"modified":"2010-03-27T13:15:38","modified_gmt":"2010-03-27T17:15:38","slug":"first-repercussions-of-citizens-united-case-strike","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/479594","title":{"rendered":"First Repercussions of Citizens United Case Strike"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

image courtsey of Tracy O<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

In a ruling that portends the unwinding of multiple campaign finance laws, a DC appeals court using the Citizens United<\/em> ruling opened up certain independent expenditure committees<\/a> to unlimited spending:<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n

On the one hand there are federal political action committees (PACs) \u2014 folks getting together to raise money for and contribute money directly to political candidates. There are contribution limits<\/a> in terms of how much they can raise per-source ($5000, whether it\u2019s a person, another PAC or party committee) and in terms of how much each can directly contribute to a candidate \u2014 $5000.<\/p>\n

On the other hand are independent expenditures \u2014 the right of an individual to spend unlimited sums of her own money to speak (and advertise) in support of a candidate\u2019s election, so long as these communications are truly independent from and not coordinated with the campaign. It\u2019s these communications which the Citizens United decision<\/a> have allowed corporations to make on the federal level as well.<\/p>\n

But that\u2019s an individual right. If a group of people wanted to form a committee together to finance independent expenditures, and not to make direct contributions to candidates, should the limits which apply to PACs apply to them?<\/span><\/p>\n

Today, a unanimous en banc opinion of the DC Circuit<\/a> (i.e., all nine judges) held that such contribution limits cannot apply to such speech-only committees, though registration and disclosure requirements do.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n

I think we can analogize this to what corporate funders and PACs can do at the state level here in California. Corporations have purchased two slots on the June ballot \u2013 PG&E wants to make it virtually impossible for municipalities to start public power utilities, and Mercury Insurance wants to place a surcharge on drivers who allow their policies to lapse for any reason. They\u2019ve not only spent millions to get on the ballot by usinng paid signature gatherers, but PG&E plans to spend $35 million dollars in ratepayer money<\/a> to get it passed. This routine attempt to buy elections can now be ported over to federal candidates, as groups can spend unlimited amounts of money on independent expenditures.<\/p>\n

In a separate ruling, a three-judge panel ruled that party committees could not seek unlimited contributions<\/a> from individuals. That was traditionally known as \u201csoft money,\u201d and the McCain-Feingold closure of that loophole has thus far held up. But basically, individuals and corporations can band together to essentially replicate that soft money in an independent expenditure, and while it couldn\u2019t be coordinated with candidate or party activities, it could still prove formidable.<\/p>\n

We haven\u2019t heard much from Congress since the initial flush of legislation proposed to deal with the Citizens United<\/em> ruling. They\u2019d better get into the game here, while a few campaign finance rules still exist.<\/p>\n

\"Share <\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

image courtsey of Tracy O In a ruling that portends the unwinding of multiple campaign finance laws, a DC appeals court using the Citizens United ruling opened up certain independent expenditure committees to unlimited spending: On the one hand there are federal political action committees (PACs) \u2014 folks getting together to raise money for and […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4406,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[7],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-479594","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/479594","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4406"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=479594"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/479594\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=479594"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=479594"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=479594"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}