Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

UI law professor: Decision in Citizens United v. FEC may be open to challenges

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
cyberswede Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-06-11 01:00 PM
Original message
UI law professor: Decision in Citizens United v. FEC may be open to challenges
Jan. 6, 2011 - University of Iowa News Release

UI law professor looks for middle ground in corporate campaign donation decision

(snip)

But University of Iowa law professor and First Amendment expert Randall Bezanson said the decision in Citizens United v. FEC may be open to later challenges that could restrict corporate spending in election campaigns (though unfortunately, probably not soon enough to prevent Americans from being relentlessly bombarded with still more campaign commercials, robo-calls and junk mail in 2012).

The Citizens United case was handed down in January 2010 and struck down earlier legal precedents that prevented corporations from donating money to election campaigns. In a 5-4 decision, the Court held that corporations enjoy the same First Amendment protections of freedom of speech as any individual citizen.

In a paper published in the Iowa Law Review, Bezanson acknowledges that Justice Anthony Kennedy’s opinion is “take no prisoners,” boldly attempting to make a broad and definitive statement. In it, Kennedy disposes of the previous idea that corporations could not give money to political campaigns because individual shareholders did not invest in the company with the belief that their money would be used to fund a candidate they may not support.

(snip)

Bezanson said Kennedy’s language in dismissing those notions is definite and attempts to leave no room to maneuver or find middle ground for restricting corporate campaign donations to politicians. But he said the opinion is muddled and poorly argued. Its language and reach are over broad and Kennedy makes disputable assumptions about earlier Court decisions. Plus, he was the only justice who signed on fully to his opinion -— three of the other four justices in the majority wrote concurring or separate opinions, which dilutes the strength of his arguments.


Read the rest: http://news-releases.uiowa.edu/2011/january/010611bezanson_citizens_united.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
rurallib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-06-11 02:07 PM
Response to Original message
1. Would it do any good while John, Sam, Tony and Clarence
sit?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 12:00 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC