D.C. Circuit Shoots Down Limits on Campaign Donations

[jimmy olsen]

Not sure I agree with the courts reasoning there. Looks like 2010 will have an absolute tsunami of advertising.

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/03/26/judges-united-dc-circuit-shoots-down-limits-on-campaign-donations/

Judges United: D.C. Circuit Shoots Down Limits on Campaign Donations

By Ashby Jones

Shortly after the Citizens United decision came down, the election-law world was abuzz with whether and to what degree the ruling would affect a case pending in the D.C. Circuit, called SpeechNow.org v. FEC.

At issue in the case: whether the government could limit individual donations to independent groups. On Friday, in a unanimous nine-judge en banc ruling, the D.C. Circuit said no, that the government was banned from imposing these limits. Click here for an early report from the BLT Blog; here for the opinion, authored by judge David Sentelle.

The suit was was brought by nonprofit group SpeechNow, which challenged an FEC opinion requiring it to organize as a political committee.

The BLT blog writes:

    The FEC had tried to argue that Citizens United did not apply in the case because the earlier decision involved spending limits, not contribution limits. It said restrictions on the latter should be subject to a less stringent standard of review.

    The court said the standard of review did not matter, because the government simply had no interest in limiting contributions to independent groups. The court emphasized that its decision applied only to independent groups like SpeechNow and would have no effect on limits on direct contributions to candidates.

So, in essence, the ruling represents a further weakening of campaign-finance laws and limits.

In the Citizens United case, remember, the Supreme Court struck down limits on what corporations could give to groups that expend money in support of one candidate or another. In SpeechNow, the D.C. Circuit took things a step farther, striking down individual limits on contributions to independent expenditure committees — groups that operate independently of a political campaign, but still work to support candidates.

Rick Hasen, an election-law expert at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, called the ruling "expansive." Said Hasen: "The court didn't have to, but it really took a very broad reading of" Citizens United. Hasen is currently representing the City of San Diego in a challenge to the city's contribution-limit laws

[The Minsky Moment]

This opinion seems to follow logically from Citizens United, despite Professor Hasen's comments to the contrary.  It is notable that not a single judge on the en banc panel was prepared to dissent, or even concur while limiting the scope. 

[DGuller]

Will that help Republicans or Democrats more?

[jimmy olsen]

Probably Republicans

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9k_nAbsNfI&feature=PlayList&p=58NKeitRqbE