JURIST Supported by the University of Pittsburgh
Serious law. Primary sources. Global perspective.

Wednesday, March 10, 2010

Senate committee hears testimony on limiting corporate campaign spending
Jaclyn Belczyk at 1:27 PM ET

[JURIST] The US Senate Judiciary Committee [official website] held a hearing [materials; video] Wednesday on the effects of the recent Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission [opinion, PDF], which eased restrictions [JURIST report] on political campaign spending by corporations. The hearing, entitled "We the People? Corporate Spending in American Elections after Citizens United," did not focus on any specific bill, but rather on general legislative efforts [JURIST report] to limit the ruling's effects. Committee chair Patrick Leahy (D-VT) [official website] said [testimony] that the "Citizens United decision turns the idea of Government of, by and for the people on its head." Witness Bradley Smith, law professor and chairman of the Center for Competitive Politics [advocacy website], countered [testimony, PDF] that "the Court's decision in Citizens United is one of the most clearly correct decisions of the Court's term," and that "Congress need not 'fix' this sound decision."

In January, the US Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission [Cornell LII backgrounder] to ease restrictions on political campaign spending by corporations. The court was asked to consider Section 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act [text, PDF], which prohibited corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds to make independent expenditures for speech defined as an "electioneering communication" or for speech expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate. President Barack Obama sharply criticized [JURIST report] the decision in his State of the Union Address [transcript] in January. Obama warned of the increased potential for powerful interest groups, both foreign and domestic, to wield excessive influence over American elections and called for bipartisan support of legislation to counteract the decision. The decision has caused a deep partisan divide [CNN report] over the topic, with Democratic officials largely opposing the decision, and Republican officials mostly in support.

Link |  | print | subscribe | RSS feeds | latest newscast | Facebook page

For more legal news check the Paper Chase Archive...


 UK to introduce laws to eradicate female genital mutilation
9:43 AM ET, July 23

 Recruitment of child soldiers persists in DRC: UN report
8:37 AM ET, July 23

 Kuwait top court upholds 10-year sentence for Twitter user
7:09 AM ET, July 23

 click for more...

Get JURIST legal news delivered daily to your e-mail!


Unprecedented Notice of Warrantless Wiretapping in a Closed Case
Ramzi Kassem
CUNY School of Law


Paper Chase is JURIST's real-time legal news service, powered by a team of 30 law student reporters and editors led by law professor Bernard Hibbitts at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law. As an educational service, Paper Chase is dedicated to presenting important legal news and materials rapidly, objectively and intelligibly in an accessible, ad-free format.


Paper Chase welcomes comments, tips and URLs from readers. E-mail us at JURIST@jurist.org