MedWorm provides a medical RSS filtering service. Over 6000 RSS medical sources are combined and output via different filters. This feed contains the latest medical blog items that have been tagged with 'citizens united'. Sat, 03 Sep 2011 02:35:08 +0100 http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=5125717&cid=t_239168_87_f&fid=36438&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F1PB3a5VQALI%2F By Ilya ShapiroMitt Romney’s explanation of why he’s against raising taxes on corporations — indeed, America already has some of the highest corporate tax rates in the developed world — at the Iowa State Fair was a bit awkward but not wholly incorrect.  Reason‘s Katherine Mangu-Ward has a good post with video and transcript, but here’s the salient bit: ROMNEY: We have to make sure that the promises we make — and Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare — are promises we can keep. And there are various ways of doing that. One is, we could raise taxes on people. AUDIENCE MEMBER: Corporations! ROMNEY: Corporations are people, my friend. We can raise taxes on— AUDIENCE MEMBER: No, they’re not! ROMNEY: Of course they are. Everything corporations earn also g... Cato-at-liberty blogs http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=5125717 Fri, 12 Aug 2011 16:12:32 +0100 5125717 http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4984426&cid=t_239168_87_f&fid=36438&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2Fil0p9jN4s5w%2F This article is still being edited — it won’t appear in the John Marshall Law Review till the fall – so comments are welcome.  Thanks to Eugene Volokh for making suggestions on an earlier version. Update: Larry Solum has “recommended” our article on the Legal Theory Blog.  Thanks! So What If Corporations Aren’t People? is a post from Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute Blog (Source: Cato-at-liberty) Cato-at-liberty blogs http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4984426 Wed, 29 Jun 2011 14:19:41 +0100 4984426 http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4975827&cid=t_239168_87_f&fid=36438&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2Ffsa2Wum2Vxs%2F By Julian SanchezI note that I’m not hearing many critics of Citizens United decrying yesterday’s very welcome Supreme Court ruling, in which the majority held unconstitutional a California statute prohibiting the sale or rental of violent video games to minors. Perhaps that’s just because they’re concerned with corporate influence on elections as a policy matter, and not so much about Grand Theft Auto, but as a matter of First Amendment interpretation, it seems as though the elements that supposedly made Citizens United a travesty are present here. As the conservative Justice Alito notes in dissent, for example, the statute at issue here does not prohibit anyone from creating, possessing, freely loaning, or playing violent video games: It regulates only their renta... Cato-at-liberty blogs http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4975827 Tue, 28 Jun 2011 16:39:05 +0100 4975827 http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4841431&cid=t_239168_87_f&fid=36438&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FmJzoGRuj-4U%2F By John SamplesSteve Simpson and Paul Sherman of the Institute for Justice have written an excellent short essay about Stephen Colbert’s effort to undermine the Citizens United decision. But the joke is on Colbert: Campaign-finance laws are so complicated that few can navigate them successfully and speak during elections—which is what the First Amendment is supposed to protect. As the Supreme Court noted in Citizens United, federal laws have created “71 distinct entities” that “are subject to different rules for 33 different types of political speech.” The FEC has adopted 568 pages of regulations and thousands of pages of explanations and opinions on what the laws mean. “Legalese” doesn’t begin to describe this mess. So what is someone who... Cato-at-liberty blogs http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4841431 Thu, 19 May 2011 18:33:00 +0100 4841431 http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4709190&cid=t_239168_87_f&fid=36438&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2Fw_3gECG0FYA%2F By John SamplesOver the next few years, most arguments about campaign finance regulation will be about extending mandated disclosure to some of the independent spending freed up by the Citizens United decision. Writing in the Wall Street Journal, James L. Huffman offers a unique perspective on mandated disclosure: he was a candidate for the U.S. Senate last year. He argues that mandated disclosure means incumbents know who funded the campaigns of their challengers.  Incumbents do not have to actually threaten anyone; disclosure plus circumstances means a cautious businessperson will stay clear of electoral participation. Huffman also claims that some people who might have contributed to his campaign heard from associates of his opponent who said contributing to Huffman might be a bad idea... Cato-at-liberty blogs http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4709190 Wed, 13 Apr 2011 15:32:20 +0100 4709190 http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4544947&cid=t_239168_87_f&fid=36438&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FRmhvzKbuPbs%2F By Ilya ShapiroRecently, activist and filmmaker Annie Leonard released a video titled "The Story of Citizens United v. FEC," an eight-and-a-half-minute criticism of last year’s Supreme Court case of the same name. Well, sort of. Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Lee Doren made his own video critique in response to Ms. Leonard’s offering, and points out quite clearly that Ms. Leonard doesn’t really deal with any actual constitutional problems in her position—essentially ignoring the decision and its rationale—and instead spends most of her time corporation bashing. Lee was kind enough to cite, inter alia, a blogpost I wrote last year about what “corporate personhood” does and does not mean. If Ms. Leonard was going to ignore the decision, it may have at least served her wel... Cato-at-liberty blogs http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4544947 Thu, 03 Mar 2011 17:40:11 +0100 4544947 http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4495175&cid=t_239168_87_f&fid=36438&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F998-bwSthvo%2F This article will explain the role stare decisis played in Citizens United and build on the Chief Justice’s concurrence to describe the current state of the doctrine. Thanks to Larry Solum for featuring us on his Legal Theory Blog. When Should Courts Overturn Precedent? is a post from Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute Blog (Source: Cato-at-liberty) Cato-at-liberty blogs http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4495175 Fri, 18 Feb 2011 22:41:19 +0100 4495175 http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4399687&cid=t_239168_125_f&fid=34819&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FFullosseousflapsDentalBlog%2F%7E3%2FONYlulEtyNE%2F Day By Day by Chris Muir Chris, President Obama did NOT propose in his SOTU speech last night to stop feeding the beast of Big Government. His proposal to veto bills with Earmarks was met with disdain from the Democrat Left and his willingness to ONLY freeze budget expenditures ridicule from the RIGHT. Now, the LEFT will go on the offensive to defend the Obama Presidency. President Obama today will travel to Wisconsin, a key Presidential battleground state, where multi-term Democrat Senator Russ Feingold was defeated for re-election last November. The GOP covets Wisconsin and sees a path to winning the Presidency there. I guess Obama can read the polls and electoral college vote maps. Also, there is every indication and I will write about this later in the day, that Big Labor and the Organ... FullosseousFlap's Dental Blog blogs http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4399687 Wed, 26 Jan 2011 14:01:28 +0100 4399687 http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4382751&cid=t_239168_87_f&fid=36438&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FIlAXKrr0E2g%2F By Caleb O. BrownThe Supreme Court majority in Citizens United asserted plainly that the federal government’s powers are few and defined in the realm of political speech. The decision has since been cast as one that does little more than give “corporations and unions the freedom to spend as much as they like to support or attack candidates.” Of course, the stakes were far higher. As the government’s attorney asserted during the initial oral argument, the Federal Election Commission retained the authority to ban the sale of certain books (e-books included) in the weeks leading up to an election, a fact opponents of Citizens United rarely mention. Shortly after that oral argument, Austin Bragg and I made a short video with Steve Simpson of the Institute for Justice, A... Cato-at-liberty blogs http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4382751 Fri, 21 Jan 2011 15:44:46 +0100 4382751 http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4372025&cid=t_239168_87_f&fid=36438&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FCczvZ1ciRyU%2F By John SamplesJeff Patch and Zac Morgan of the Center for Competitive Politics report on the storm that is brewing at the Federal Election Commission over regulations to implement Citizens United. The three Democratic appointees propose regulations that would impose significant elements of the DISCLOSE Act, a bill that failed to pass Congress last year. The three Republican appointees, in contrast, propose to clarify existing law and clear away defunct regulations, all with an eye toward the holdings in Citizens United. The FEC seems unlikely to adopt the proposals by the Democratic appointees. After all, the Democratic commissioners do not have and are unlikely to obtain majority support for their agenda. Imagine if the Federal Election Commission were directed by a seven-member board wh... Cato-at-liberty blogs http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4372025 Wed, 19 Jan 2011 17:38:04 +0100 4372025 http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4197032&cid=t_239168_87_f&fid=36438&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FVTRJXu0VioY%2F By Roger PilonIn a barely coherent editorial this morning, The New York Times continues its decades-long crusade against free speech — except its own, of course — with yet another blast at the Supreme Court over its campaign finance decision last January in the Citizens United case. And again, the Times misstates the decision: it did not overturn “a century of precedent.” Perhaps its editorialists can be forgiven for that, even after nearly a year to get it right: after all, the president himself continues to misstate the decision, and that’s good enough for them. Entitled “Our Constitutional Court,” the editorial’s main point seems to be that the Court is “redefining itself as a constitutional court.” That’s a curious charge. Many countries have “constituti... Cato-at-liberty blogs http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4197032 Tue, 23 Nov 2010 18:35:26 +0100 4197032 http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4036627&cid=t_239168_87_f&fid=36438&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FOkwoBE_tsr0%2F By Caleb O. BrownIt’s not at all clear that the political challengers whose fortunes are raised today won’t try to pull up the ladder of free and open political speech when their own incumbency receives a challenge. The Citizens United decision notwithstanding, the drive to be returned to office is a strong one. In today’s Cato Daily Podcast (subscribe!), John Samples offers fans of free speech a few things to consider about this and future election cycles: “In politics, when people talk about special interests, they don’t mean the people who support them.” “[Independent spending on elections] is an unknown factor. Incumbents, even those who win big, live in fear of a big last-minute spending push by outside groups.” “The point of ... Cato-at-liberty blogs http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4036627 Wed, 06 Oct 2010 14:57:49 +0100 4036627 http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4022899&cid=t_239168_87_f&fid=36438&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FtXeNkujL5UU%2F By Michael F. CannonIn all of Washington, is there a greater enemy of free speech than Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius? Her department is forcing millions of Americans to finance speech that they oppose, by using taxpayer dollars to broadcast (misleading) television ads that promote ObamaCare. She is using the powers granted her under ObamaCare to threaten insurers with bankruptcy if they publicly disagree with her about the law’s cost. Now, she is decrying the growth of anonymous political speech in congressional campaigns. Would that coerced speech, or government suppression of speech, troubled her as much as anonymous speech. Sebelius: Anonymous Political Speech ‘Dangerous’ is a post from Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute Blog (Source: Cato-at-... Cato-at-liberty blogs http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4022899 Fri, 01 Oct 2010 14:46:09 +0100 4022899 http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3965506&cid=t_239168_109_f&fid=36089&url=http%3A%2F%2Fthesituationist.wordpress.com%2F2010%2F09%2F14%2Fsituationist-corruption%2F Molly J. Walker Wilson recently posted her article, “Behavioral Decision Theory and Implications for the Supreme Court’s Campaign Finance Jurisprudence” (Cardozo Law Review, Vol. 31, p. 679, 2010) on SSRN.  Here’s the abstract. * * * America stands at a moment in history when advances in the understanding of human decision-making are increasing the strategic efficacy of political strategy. As campaign spending for the presidential race reaches hundreds of millions of dollars, the potential for harnessing the power of psychological tactics becomes considerable. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has characterized campaign money as “speech” and has required evidence of corruption or the appearance of corruption in order to uphold restrictions on campaign expenditures. Ulti... The Situationist blogs http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3965506 Tue, 14 Sep 2010 04:01:47 +0100 3965506 http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3671666&cid=t_239168_87_f&fid=36438&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FxMK0wcACeUE%2F By Ilya ShapiroIn case you missed yesterday’s excellent Hill Briefing on the DISCLOSE Act and other recent developments in speech restrictions, next week I’ll be debating Citizens United and the future of campaign finance regulation.  The event, cutely titled “Citizens United, Republic Divided; Campaign Finance Law After Citizens United,” takes place June 24 at noon at American University’s Washington School of Law, Room 401.  That’s 4801 Massachusetts Ave. NW here in Washington.  IJ’s Steve Simpson and I will be up against American U’s Jamie Raskin and Election Law Blog’s Rick Hasen (who has also blogged this notice).  RSVP to Michael Vasquez at mv5786a@student.american.edu so there’s enough lunch to go around. For Cato&#821... Cato-at-liberty blogs http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3671666 Thu, 17 Jun 2010 19:28:09 +0100 3671666 http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3652395&cid=t_239168_87_f&fid=36438&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FPhAmWAwWzLI%2F By John SamplesCongress has been trying to overturn the Citizens United decision for the past four months. (Citizens United invalidated bans on speech by groups taking a corporate form). Their effort — the DISCLOSE Act — now seems bogged down in the House of Representatives. The National Rifle Association argues that they should not have to disclose their small donors. The labor unions also have complaints: Amaya Tune, a spokeswoman for the AFL-CIO, told Bloomberg this week that “the final bill should treat corporations different than democratic organizations such as unions. We believe the legislation should counter the excessive and disproportionate influence by big business and guarantee effective disclosure of who is paying for what.” Here’s the problem: The Supre... Cato-at-liberty blogs http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3652395 Fri, 11 Jun 2010 15:08:42 +0100 3652395 http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3552220&cid=t_239168_87_f&fid=36438&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FLVlPYQ_3Wxs%2F By Walter Olson Confirmation hearings are a “vapid and hollow charade”, or at least that’s what Elena Kagan wrote fifteen years ago. National Review Online invited me to contribute to a symposium on how Republican senators can keep the coming hearings from becoming such a charade, with results that can be found here. The First Amendment has been among Kagan’s leading scholarly interests, and yesterday in this space Ilya Shapiro raised interesting questions of whether she will make an strong guardian of free speech values. Eugene Volokh looks at her record and guesses that she might wind up adopting a middling position similar to that of Justice Ginsburg. As Radley Balko and Jacob Sullum have noted, the departing John Paul Stevens ran up at best a mixed record on Fir... Cato-at-liberty blogs http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3552220 Tue, 11 May 2010 15:28:11 +0100 3552220 http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3549294&cid=t_239168_87_f&fid=36438&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2Fz3HD0yxpKbM%2F By Ilya ShapiroAs expected, and despite an exhaustive review of shortlist candidates, dead-end leaks about Hillary Clinton, and other distractions, President Obama settled on the long-time prohibitive favorite to be his next Supreme Court nominee.  Elena Kagan became the justice-in-waiting the moment Sonia Sotomayor was confirmed, so you didn’t have to be Tom Goldstein to have predicted this.  The president wanted a highly credentialed non-judge who would serve for a long time and wouldn’t cost too much political capital.  He got a 50-year-old solicitor general and former dean of Harvard Law School – the first female in each post – whose record the Senate (and media, and activists) already examined in a confirmation process that put her into her current post.  That her appointm... Cato-at-liberty blogs http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3549294 Mon, 10 May 2010 11:42:53 +0100 3549294 http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3533812&cid=t_239168_87_f&fid=36438&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FAwfJ783c1GI%2F By John SamplesJournalists are looking closely at the DISCLOSE bill, Congress’ response to Citizens United.  CQ says DISCLOSE will loosen independent spending by the parties on their candidates. Why is Congress liberalizing party spending? CQ explains: According to one GOP attorney, opponents of the Supreme Court’s decision are realizing that they will have a difficult time challenging the constitutional right of outside groups to spend money, so this bill is a response to free up the parties to compete. Mark that. Citizens United has altered the incentives regarding speech. In the past, Congress tried to suppress speech to win elections. Now leaders must liberalize in order to compete for votes. (Source: Cato-at-liberty) Cato-at-liberty blogs http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3533812 Wed, 05 May 2010 15:23:55 +0100 3533812 http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3494366&cid=t_239168_109_f&fid=36089&url=http%3A%2F%2Fthesituationist.wordpress.com%2F2010%2F04%2F22%2Fthe-state-of-shareholder-power-in-the-situation-of-citizens-united%2F Who is speaking when a corporation talks? Can a corporation represent all of its shareholders and workers in political speech? How will corporations decide who to represent?  In “Corporate Governance Redux in the Light of Citizens United,” Robert A.G. Monks will detail  the history of corporate personhood and how this case relates to corporate governance. * * * Come hear Mr. Monks, shareholder activist, author, corporate governance advisor, and HLS alum, for a lunch-time discussion of the state of shareholder power after Citizens United (04/22/10).  The talk will be held in Austin West at Harvard Law School (12pm-1pm).  Lunch will be provided. (Source: The Situationist) The Situationist blogs http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3494366 Thu, 22 Apr 2010 04:01:22 +0100 3494366 http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3487151&cid=t_239168_109_f&fid=36089&url=http%3A%2F%2Fthesituationist.wordpress.com%2F2010%2F04%2F20%2Fthe-frontline-of-citizens-united%2F What are the implications of corporate personhood after the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizen’s United? Get the story from behind this term’s most talked-about case from the lawyers who argued in district court and wrote the Supreme Court briefs. How did the FEC develop it’s position? What is at stake? What role do agency lawyers place in a high-profile case? What are the FEC’s next steps in light of the decision? * * * David B. Kolker and Kevin A. Deely, Associate General Counsels for the Federal Election Commission, will speak today (04/19/10) at Harvard Law School (12pm-1pm, Austin East).  Lunch will be provided. (Source: The Situationist) The Situationist blogs http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3487151 Tue, 20 Apr 2010 04:01:52 +0100 3487151 http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3471767&cid=t_239168_87_f&fid=36438&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FKq_zq09_lNY%2F By David BoazGeorge Will offers conservatives a useful reminder about “judicial activism” and what the Supreme Court ought to be doing: Conservatives spoiling for a fight should watch their language. The recent decision most dismaying to them was Kelo (2005), wherein the court upheld the constitutionality of a city government using its eminent domain power to seize property for the spurious “public use” of transferring it to wealthier interests who will pay higher taxes to the seizing government. Conservatives wish the court had been less deferential to elected local governments. (Stevens later expressed regret for his part in the Kelo ruling.) The recent decision most pleasing to conservatives was this year’s Citizens United, wherein the court overturned part... Cato-at-liberty blogs http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3471767 Thu, 15 Apr 2010 14:53:57 +0100 3471767 http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3411093&cid=t_239168_87_f&fid=36438&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FEtMQjrQlTKs%2F By Roger PilonThis post was co-authored with John Samples. Another good day for free speech, and a bad day for campaign finance zealots. Following on the heels of the Supreme Court’s stunning decision two months ago in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, and applying that holding, all nine active judges on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously today that government restrictions on the right of citizens to pool their money for independent political ads are unconstitutional. Individuals have long been able to spend unlimited funds on independent political ads. But if two or more people joined together and pooled their money for the same thing, they were considered a “political committee” and were subject to numerous burdensome regulations, including limits on ... Cato-at-liberty blogs http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3411093 Fri, 26 Mar 2010 18:24:02 +0100 3411093 http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3382801&cid=t_239168_87_f&fid=36438&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F9982If77svc%2F By John SamplesLawrence Lessig has proposed a constitutional amendment in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United.  It reads: “Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to restrict the power to limit, though not to ban, campaign expenditures of non-citizens of the United States during the last 60 days before an election.” In Citizens United, the Court said that the First Amendment concerns speech rather than speakers. Congress has no power to discriminate against speakers; hence, a source of speech – people organized as a corporation – could not be prohibited from speaking (or funding speech). Professor Lessig hopes to introduce a discrimination among speakers into the First Amendment. His proposed discrimination will not ... Cato-at-liberty blogs http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3382801 Thu, 18 Mar 2010 20:31:47 +0100 3382801 http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3378447&cid=t_239168_87_f&fid=36438&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2Fskg02cxyeKo%2F By John SamplesM. Todd Henderson of the University of Chicago Law School has a brief but important essay making the case for Citizens United.  As they say, read the whole thing. (Source: Cato-at-liberty) Cato-at-liberty blogs http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3378447 Thu, 18 Mar 2010 16:23:11 +0100 3378447 http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3363639&cid=t_239168_87_f&fid=36438&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2Fejo0EBSIEKk%2F By David BoazWhite House senior advisor David Axelrod continued the administration’s campaign against the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision on ABC’s This Week: But thinking about Teddy Roosevelt, I wonder what he would think about a bill that essentially allows for a corporate takeover of our elections, or a court decision. And that’s what we’re dealing with here. Under the ruling of the Supreme Court, any lobbyist could go into any legislator and say, if you don’t vote our way on this bill, we’re going to run a million-dollar campaign against you in your district. And that is a threat to our democracy. He was of course echoing and defending President Obama’s declaration in the State of the Union address: With all due deference to sepa... Cato-at-liberty blogs http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3363639 Sun, 14 Mar 2010 16:21:39 +0100 3363639 http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3346440&cid=t_239168_87_f&fid=36438&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FNJbo8nr8rWY%2F By John SamplesThe Center for Competitive Politics has just published a new poll measuring public views about the recent Citizens United decision. The poll provides a lot of interesting information. About one in five said they were aware of the decision. Fully 60 percent of respondents said they were not aware of the case, and it is fair to say that almost all of the other 20 percent who responded “don’t know” or refused to answer were also poorly informed about it. Congress is now trying to write and enact legislation to overcome the strictures imposed on campaign finance regulation by the Citizens United decision. Members cite surveys supporting such legislation as a justification for the new restrictions. At best, however, public opinion is immature on this issue. Cong... Cato-at-liberty blogs http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3346440 Tue, 09 Mar 2010 15:47:38 +0100 3346440 http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3335287&cid=t_239168_87_f&fid=36438&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FuJ2ZjA44jdk%2F By John SamplesDavid Price, a Democratic member of the House of Representatives from North Carolina, has introduced a bill, the Stand by Every Ad Act,  to mandate disclosure of support for political speech by business and union officials. Rep. Price cites three harms from such speech: “the opportunity for corporations, unions and associations to dominate the playing field, intimidating public officials and drowning out the candidates’ own messages.” Notice that these alleged harms are caused by the speech itself and not by the fact that the speech might be anonymous. Notice also that Rep. Price provides no evidence at all that such harms will take place. Where would such evidence be found? Prior to McCain-Feingold, corporations and unions could fund speech. Several state... Cato-at-liberty blogs http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3335287 Fri, 05 Mar 2010 14:23:11 +0100 3335287 http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3283520&cid=t_239168_87_f&fid=36438&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FyKk76th22OY%2F By John SamplesA new poll from Washington Post/ABC News poll shows that most respondents oppose the recent Citizens United decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. Just over 70 percent of those polled want to reinstate the unconstitutional restrictions. The questions asked may be found here. Sean Parnell asks whether the wording of the questions in this poll drove the results. William McGinley shares Parnell’s concerns and suggests some alternative questions for future polling. I was not surprised by the result. Polls have long found that substantial majorities support something called “campaign finance reform.” Over two years ago, a poll found that 71 percent of Americans wanted to limit corporate and union spending on campaigns. 62 percent also supported limiting the amount of money a p... Cato-at-liberty blogs http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3283520 Wed, 17 Feb 2010 18:15:41 +0100 3283520 http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3279957&cid=t_239168_87_f&fid=36438&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FHmy8tPqML5U%2F By Chris Moody Is there a place for gay people in conservative politics? We’ll be discussing it today at Cato. Watch here live at 12 PM EST. President Obama announces $8 billion in loan guarantees to build a new nuclear power plant in Georgia. But are government subsidies for pet energy projects a good idea? Are there loopholes in Obama’s ban on torture? What happens when the Olympics don’t go completely according to plan. Podcast: “Lessig, Schumer and Citizens United” featuring John Samples. (Source: Cato-at-liberty) Cato-at-liberty blogs http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3279957 Wed, 17 Feb 2010 15:49:29 +0100 3279957 http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3269682&cid=t_239168_87_f&fid=36438&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FLD7c7mX6C8Y%2F By John SamplesSnowstorm notwithstanding, Sen. Charles Schumer and Rep. Chris Van Hollen introduced legislation in response to the Citizens United decision. A summary of their effort can be found here. Some parts of the proposal are simply pandering to anti-foreign bias (corporations with shareholding by foreigners are prohibited from funding speech) and anger about bailouts (firms receiving TARP money are banned from funding speech). Government contractors are also prohibited from independent spending to support speech. We shall see whether these prohibitions hold up in court. The censorship of government contractors and TARP recipients will likely prove to be an unconstitutional condition upon receiving government benefits. Despite Citizens United, Congress will try to suppress speech by... Cato-at-liberty blogs http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3269682 Fri, 12 Feb 2010 18:43:31 +0100 3269682 http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3239556&cid=t_239168_87_f&fid=36438&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FE6jX2NqYGS8%2F By Chris Moody David Boaz debates at The Economist: Is Obama failing? “In many ways, Obama has just doubled down on George W. Bush’s policies of bailouts, takeovers, expanded Fed powers and nationalizations. In a recession he is adding debt, taxes and regulation to the burdens already felt by business.” Readers can vote and join the debate. Ever wonder why weather forecasters can get things so wrong? Looking for a primer on the causes of the financial crisis? The new Cato Policy Report has answers. How to tell when the government health care overhaul is dead. Podcast: “Citizens United and SpeechNow.org” featuring Steve Simpson of the Institute of Justice. (Source: Cato-at-liberty) Cato-at-liberty blogs http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3239556 Wed, 03 Feb 2010 18:40:46 +0100 3239556 http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3235823&cid=t_239168_87_f&fid=36438&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FO83bixU3X2c%2F By Ilya ShapiroThe blogosphere has been abuzz on the heels of the Supreme Court’s landmark Citizens United opinion.  Hysteric criticisms of the speculative changes to our political landscape aside — including the President’s misstatements in the State of the Union — one of the most common and oft-repeated criticisms is that the Constitution does not protect corporations. Several “reform” groups have even drafted and circulated constitutional amendments to address this concern. This line of attack demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of both the nature of corporations and the freedoms protected by the Constitution, which is exemplified by the facile charge that “corporations aren’t human beings.” Well of course they aren’t — but that’s constitutionall... Cato-at-liberty blogs http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3235823 Wed, 03 Feb 2010 00:45:23 +0100 3235823 http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3231456&cid=t_239168_87_f&fid=36438&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FG3oL3F3fM7s%2F By Roger PilonFollowing on the heels of November’s gubernatorial elections in Virginia and New Jersey, the loss of Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat in Massachusetts two weeks ago was a devastating blow to Democratic Party hopes.  But it must have been especially devastating to President Obama, who promised an adoring University of Missouri crowd, just before he was elected, that “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”  Yet it would appear, judging from the unrelenting commentary and from the president’s own behavior last week, that those losses pale in comparison to the government’s loss before the Supreme Court two days after the polls closed in Massachusetts.  For 11 days now the wailing over the Court’s C... Cato-at-liberty blogs http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3231456 Mon, 01 Feb 2010 20:42:16 +0100 3231456 http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3220511&cid=t_239168_87_f&fid=36438&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FaCkqZa3u09U%2F By Chris Moody Cato experts give Obama’s State of the Union a video fisking. Are we watching the History Channel or something?  Because this new president sure does sound a lot like the old one. Time for the SOTU fact check:  Cato experts put some of President Obama’s core State of the Union claims to the test. Here’s what they found. Flashback to February 2009: Gene Healy on how “the president talks too much.“ During this year’s SOTU, President Obama criticized the Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United case. Today’s podcast examines the Court’s ruling. (Source: Cato-at-liberty) Cato-at-liberty blogs http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3220511 Thu, 28 Jan 2010 20:44:38 +0100 3220511 http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3208342&cid=t_239168_87_f&fid=36438&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F0Oxeqqp1HgI%2F By John SamplesYou might have heard that the Citizens United decision will allow foreign corporations to become involved in American campaigns. You might have heard that from the President, in fact, whose speech decrying the decision said foreign corporations “may now get into the act” of pursuing their “special interests” in American politics. Not true. Justice Kennedy explicitly says the Court did not decide whether Congress has the power to prevent “foreign individuals or associations from influencing our Nation’s political process.” Nothing in Citizens United prevents Congress from prohibiting such political spending by foreign corporations. The Supreme Court might uphold such a law or it might strike it down. The upholding or the striking down... Cato-at-liberty blogs http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3208342 Mon, 25 Jan 2010 20:20:11 +0100 3208342 http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3204836&cid=t_239168_87_f&fid=36438&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FgvXoHyeZqkM%2F By Thomas FireyThe New York Times editorial board must be baffled by this news story about a few dozen present and former corporate executives appealing to Congress to expand public funding of political campaigns. The appeal comes one day after the Supreme Court re-extended (some) First Amendment rights to corporations in a move the editorial board branded a “blow to democracy” that will lead to corporations “overwhelm[ing] elections and intimidat[ing] elected officials.” But now some corporate executives want to be dispossessed of the keys to the kingdom immediately after SCOTUS returned them — say what? The executives’ appeal makes sense if you’ve read this article by law professor Robert Sitkoff (then of Northwestern, now the John L. Gray Profes... Cato-at-liberty blogs http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3204836 Mon, 25 Jan 2010 15:59:53 +0100 3204836 http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3204838&cid=t_239168_87_f&fid=36438&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FIQdrGUApn48%2F By John SamplesThe Citizens United decision and the talk that has followed imply two different and incompatible ideas of the Constitution. The majority in Citizens United believe that the U.S. Constitution establishes a government of limited and defined powers. They asked: “Does the Constitution give government the power to prohibit speech by corporations (and others)?” The First Amendment indicated the government did not have that power. The critics of the Citizens United decision assume the Constitution created a government of  plenary powers with limited exceptions. They recognize that free speech for individuals is one such exception. But that exception is limited to natural people, not legal constructs. If there is no exception to the plenary power of government, the critics conc... Cato-at-liberty blogs http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3204838 Mon, 25 Jan 2010 15:29:22 +0100 3204838 http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3204839&cid=t_239168_87_f&fid=36438&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F6sxt8e4R7Os%2F By Roger PilonToday, Politico Arena asks: What is it about the word “populist”? (these days) My response: “Populist” (or “populism”), in its American usage, invokes the “common man,” yet the idea’s origins — in ”the people” or “the polis” — can be traced to ancient Greek democracy and, in particular, to political demagoguery.  Both Plato and Aristotle had reservations about democracy as a system of government precisely because it was susceptible to corruption by populist appeals to superstition and error.  In America, populism has had a long and varied history, but it is most often associated with the Populist Party that was formed in 1891 and, in particular, with the fiery speeches of the... Cato-at-liberty blogs http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3204839 Mon, 25 Jan 2010 14:51:45 +0100 3204839 http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3200418&cid=t_239168_87_f&fid=36438&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2Frod6J8rjTXw%2F By Julian SanchezWell, no, because as my liberal friends all seem to be indignantly announcing in the aftermath of the Citizens United ruling, corporations aren’t really people! They’re creatures of statute, and “corporate personhood” is just a convenient legal fiction.  Which is fair enough, but also seems to miss the point rather spectacularly. As a practical matter, it is hard to imagine any constitutional liberty that could not be reduced to a hollow joke if we refused to count as an infringement any regulation that nominally targeted only the corporate mechanism for coordinating its exercise. Having dispensed with the repellent doctrine of corporate personhood, we can happily declare that journalists enjoy full freedom of the press … as long as they don&... Cato-at-liberty blogs http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3200418 Fri, 22 Jan 2010 22:25:54 +0100 3200418 http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3200419&cid=t_239168_87_f&fid=36438&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FNcsco-nZIUI%2F By Roger PilonPolitico Arena asked a second question today: Will Citizens United alter American campaigns and if so, how? My response: Will Citizens United alter American campaigns?  Probably — and for the good.  Corporations, unions, and their officers will no longer fear criminal prosecution if they run afoul of inscrutable prohibitions on independent political campaign expenditures that not even FEC commissioners understand.  There will be more political speech as a result, and more perspectives on the issues of the day.  That speech will come from all sides — after all, George Soros and Rupert Murdoch are not likely to be saying the same things, and with restraints prior to elections now lifted, differences like those will doubtless be reflected in great variety i... Cato-at-liberty blogs http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3200419 Fri, 22 Jan 2010 21:58:34 +0100 3200419 http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3200421&cid=t_239168_87_f&fid=36438&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FJjqXzqg9NM4%2F By Ilya ShapiroYesterday, The Hill asked various pundits and politicos to respond to the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling.  The Big Question (as their periodic feature is called) was, “Will corporate money change campaigns?”  You can read my response here. Today, that same newspaper invited me to blog some further thoughts on the Citizens United decision.  Here’s what I wrote: Critics of yesterday’s decision say the sky of American democracy is falling.  Supporters—including myself—say it’s a great day for the republic and a vindication of the freedom of speech.  How can this be?  Are nonprofit think tanks and advocacy groups like my own Cato Institute, the ACLU, the NRA, and many other odd bedfellows who supported Citizens United all in the pock... Cato-at-liberty blogs http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3200421 Fri, 22 Jan 2010 20:56:40 +0100 3200421 http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3197606&cid=t_239168_87_f&fid=36438&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F6FHHWixFLcc%2F By Timothy B. LeeAs several of my colleagues noted yesterday, the Supreme Court handed down its landmark decision in Citizens United v. FEC. While I regarded the decision as a victory for free speech, a large number of folks on the left — many of whom support free speech in other contexts — were aghast at the decision, arguing that it would vastly enhance the influence of large corporations in the political process. Part of my disagreement with these guys is that I’m just a free speech zealot. The First Amendment says “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech,” and I don’t see how that language can be squared with a statute that limits the distribution of a political documentary. The best you can say, I think, is that limiting corporate... Cato-at-liberty blogs http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3197606 Fri, 22 Jan 2010 13:31:39 +0100 3197606 http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3197607&cid=t_239168_87_f&fid=36438&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FlP3mrPh1dws%2F By Jim HarperSecretary of State Hillary Clinton gave a major speech on Internet freedom today. The text has been posted on the State Department web site, and Adam Thierer has a review of it up on the TechLiberationFront blog. As a signal to other governments, it was a good speech. It placed the United States government on the side of freedom movements around the world and extolled how technology empowers them. From a domestic perspective, it was nothing special. References to the liberating power of the Internet were carefully caveated with cautions about online dangers that could justify government intrusion on the Internet. Secretary Clinton was particularly equivocal about online anonymity. The irony, of course, was provided by the breaking news of the day: the Supreme Court’s... Cato-at-liberty blogs http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3197607 Fri, 22 Jan 2010 02:38:40 +0100 3197607 http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3197611&cid=t_239168_87_f&fid=36438&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2Fv_PjdAIck80%2F By Chris Moody The back story behind the Citizens United free speech case. (Or if you don’t have time to read about it, this short video clip explains it all.) RomneyCare: Obama’s OTHER Massachusetts problem. Tim Geithner’s lifelong love of bailouts. How substantial and meaningful change can be brought to Haiti. Podcast: “Supreme Court Affirms First Amendment” featuring John Samples. (Source: Cato-at-liberty) Cato-at-liberty blogs http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3197611 Thu, 21 Jan 2010 21:01:32 +0100 3197611 http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3197612&cid=t_239168_87_f&fid=36438&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FIHjWO80UZx8%2F By Roger PilonAt Politico Arena, today’s focus is on the Court and campaign finance. My comment: The ink is barely dry on today’s Citizens United opinion, and the hysteria has already begun.  Set aside the misunderstandings we’re seeing in some of the comments here at the Arena — corporations still cannot, for example, contribute directly to campaigns — even some of those who understand the law and this decision would have us believe that the world as we know it is coming to an end.  Thus, the inimitable Rick Hasen, whose knowledge of these issues is second to none, tells us that “today’s Supreme Court opinion marks a very bad day for American democracy.”  And attorneys at NYU’s Brennan Center, which made its reputation promoting... Cato-at-liberty blogs http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3197612 Thu, 21 Jan 2010 20:40:03 +0100 3197612 http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3197613&cid=t_239168_87_f&fid=36438&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FoUBxLSn8xTQ%2F By John SamplesThe Citizens United decision is barely out, and incumbent members of Congress are vowing to restore restrictions on political speech. Sen. Russell Feingold (D-WI) said: “In the coming weeks, I will work with my colleagues to pass legislation restoring as many of the critical restraints on corporate control of our elections as possible.” In the House of Representatives, Robert Brady, Chairman of the House Administration Committee – the panel responsible for campaign finance regulations – sent out an email that said: “I will be working directly with my colleagues, the Leadership and the White House to study the Court’s decision and to put together a timeline for legislative action that ensures the Court’s decision will not define the ways election... Cato-at-liberty blogs http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3197613 Thu, 21 Jan 2010 18:27:56 +0100 3197613 http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3193692&cid=t_239168_87_f&fid=36438&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F_TO11YwTO6I%2F By Ilya ShapiroToday the Supreme Court struck a major blow for free speech by correctly holding that government cannot try to “level the political playing field” by banning corporations from making independent campaign expenditures on films, books, or even campaign signs. As Justice Kennedy said in announcing the opinion, “if the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits jailing citizens for engaging in political speech.” While the Court has long upheld campaign finance regulations as a way to prevent corruption in elections, it has also repeated that equalizing speech is never a valid government interest. After all, to make campaign spending equal, the government would have to prevent some people or groups from spending less than they wished. That is directly con... Cato-at-liberty blogs http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3193692 Thu, 21 Jan 2010 15:29:51 +0100 3193692 http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2939292&cid=t_239168_87_f&fid=38368&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.medicaretoday.org%2Fpdfs%2F2009survey.pdf Mary R. Grealy is president of the Healthcare Leadership Council, a coalition of chief executives of the nation’s leading health care companies and organizations.  She is also the author of Prognosis:  A Healthcare Blog which explores the nexus at which healthcare policy meets healthcare practice. If only it were an urban legend that senior citizens in the United States were cutting their physician-prescribed pills in half or ignoring their medications altogether in order to have enough money for food and utilities, but one doesn’t need academic studies to know that this kind of economically-forced non-adherence has too often been the case in our country. After Congress passed the Medicare Modernization Act (MMA), creating the Part D prescription drug program, the Healthcare Leadersh... Disruptive Women in Health Care blogs http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2939292 Thu, 29 Oct 2009 10:36:07 +0100 2939292 http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2862467&cid=t_239168_87_f&fid=36438&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FRj9LnW-2nBo%2F Today is the first Monday in October, and so is First Monday, the traditional start of the Supreme Court term.  The Court already heard one argument – in the Citizens United campaign finance case — but it had been carried over from last year, so it doesn’t really count. In any event, continuing its trend from last term, the Court has further front-loaded its caseload — with nearly 60 arguments on its docket already.  Fortunately, unlike last year, we’ll see many blockbuster cases, including: the application of the Second Amendment to state gun regulations; First Amendment challenges to national park monuments and a statute criminalizing the depiction of animal cruelty; an Eighth Amendment challenge to life sentences for juveniles; a potential revisiting of ... Cato-at-liberty blogs http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2862467 Mon, 05 Oct 2009 15:59:21 +0100 2862467 http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2834247&cid=t_239168_87_f&fid=36438&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FXOz1m0T704I%2F The Citizens United case currently before the Supreme Court may radically reshape campaign finance law for years to come. Former FEC commissioner Bradley A. Smith spoke at a forum on the case a day before the rehearing before the high court. According to Smith, who is also the founder of the Center for Competitive Politics,  under current law, the government does have the power to ban certain books  if those books are published by a corporation, as ruled by the Supreme Court in 1990. Watch: (Source: Cato-at-liberty) Cato-at-liberty blogs http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2834247 Sat, 26 Sep 2009 02:59:01 +0100 2834247 http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2828182&cid=t_239168_87_f&fid=36438&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FjJGQste2RS8%2F I assume others have pointed this out already, but there’s something very odd about a Tuesday editorial in The New York Times arguing that campaign finance regulations that stifle the political speech of corporations must be upheld in the Citizens United case currently under consideration before the Supreme Court: The question at the heart of one of the biggest Supreme Court cases this year is simple: What constitutional rights should corporations have? To us, as well as many legal scholars, former justices and, indeed, drafters of the Constitution, the answer is that their rights should be quite limited — far less than those of people. In that case, surely it’s time to revisit some of the 20th century’s seminal free speech rulings. The idea that public figures cannot u... Cato-at-liberty blogs http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2828182 Thu, 24 Sep 2009 14:42:43 +0100 2828182 http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2782012&cid=t_239168_87_f&fid=36438&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FH6_9KADeCQ4%2F I (and several colleagues) have blogged before about Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the latest campaign finance case, which was argued this morning at the Supreme Court.  The case is about much more than whether a corporation can release a movie about a political candidate during an election campaign.  Indeed, it goes to the very heart of the First Amendment, which was specifically created to protect political speech—the kind most in danger of being censored by politicians looking to limit the appeal of threatening candidates and ideas. After all, hard-hitting political speech is something the First Amendment’s authors experienced firsthand.  They knew very well what they were doing in choosing free and vigorous debate over government-filtered pablum.  Moreove... Cato-at-liberty blogs http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2782012 Wed, 09 Sep 2009 21:15:01 +0100 2782012 http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2774609&cid=t_239168_87_f&fid=36438&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FnYufE6O6ARI%2F My old friend E. J. Dionne of the Washington Post writes that the Citizens United v. FEC rehearing on Wednesday is “A Test Case for Roberts.” Because, you see, Chief Justice John Roberts said in his confirmation hearings that “it is a jolt to the legal system when you overrule a precedent. Precedent plays an important role in promoting stability and evenhandedness. It is not enough — and the court has emphasized this on several occasions — it is not enough that you may think the prior decision was wrongly decided.” Dionne says that if Roberts and the Court overturn the precedents that seem to point to banning a movie with a political agenda because it was produced by a nonprofit corporation, “he will unleash havoc in our political system and great... Cato-at-liberty blogs http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2774609 Tue, 08 Sep 2009 14:50:58 +0100 2774609 http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2774611&cid=t_239168_87_f&fid=36438&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FdF9F9UkzdbI%2F The U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments this week in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.  The case features the Federal Election Commission ruling that for the group Citizens United to run its documentary on Hillary Clinton would violate McCain-Feingold.  The decision was a constitutional travesty, since this is precisely the sort of political speech that constitutes the core of the First Amendment. Theodore B. Olson has given us a taste in the Wall Street Journal of the argument that he will be making before the Court tomorrow: The idea that corporate and union speech is somehow inherently corrupting is nonsense. Most corporations are small businesses, and they have every right to speak out when a candidate threatens the welfare of their employees or shareholders. Time a... Cato-at-liberty blogs http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2774611 Tue, 08 Sep 2009 13:55:23 +0100 2774611 http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2751885&cid=t_239168_87_f&fid=36438&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FDwgvnW8m64Y%2F The Supreme Court is soon to hear a case that may drastically roll back campaign finance regulation in the United States: The case involves “Hillary: The Movie,” a mix of advocacy journalism and political commentary that is a relentlessly negative look at Mrs. Clinton’s character and career. The documentary was made by a conservative advocacy group called Citizens United, which lost a lawsuit against the Federal Election Commission seeking permission to distribute it on a video-on-demand service. The film is available on the Internet and on DVD. The issue was that the McCain-Feingold law bans corporate money being used for electioneering. The right position for the Court is that McCain-Feingold, and all other campaign finance regulation, constitutes unconstitutional limitation on fre... Cato-at-liberty blogs http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2751885 Mon, 31 Aug 2009 22:24:51 +0100 2751885 http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2712075&cid=t_239168_87_f&fid=36438&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2Fth4KyZQpDJs%2F The Washington Post offers a brief item this morning on the upcoming Citizens United reargument. Robert Barnes writes, “The court is considering whether to overturn its previous decisions that restrict unions and corporations from using their general treasuries to influence election campaigns.” Actually, a better description of the case would be: the Supreme Court is considering overturning decisions that restrict corporations from using their general treasuries to try to influence election campaigns. In the most important decision at issue, Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, the latter organization wished to run an advertisement naming a candidate and supporting his views on economic policy. That ad may have convinced some voters. It may have repelled others. Many voters would no... Cato-at-liberty blogs http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2712075 Tue, 18 Aug 2009 15:44:56 +0100 2712075 http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2561215&cid=t_239168_87_f&fid=36438&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FG6UeB8BUL3c%2F As I mentioned yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court surprised many people by ordering a reargument in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Specifically, the Court called for the parties to the case to address the question of overruling Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce. The Court decided Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce in 1989.  The state of Michigan had prohibited corporations from spending money on electoral speech. In the case in question, the Chamber of Commerce wished to pay for an advertisement backing a candidate for the House of Representatives. The Chamber took this action on its own and not in tandem with the candidate or his party.  Paying for the ad was a felony under Michigan law. A majority of the Court in 1989 said the Michigan law did not v... Cato-at-liberty blogs http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2561215 Tue, 30 Jun 2009 18:22:12 +0100 2561215 http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2556083&cid=t_239168_87_f&fid=36438&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F4BhFk73aBqA%2F The U.S. Supreme Court has decided not to decide in its current term the campaign finance case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Instead, the Court issued an order that the case should be reargued. The parties in the reargument should address the question of whether the Court should overrule two of its earlier decisions. In the Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, the Court held that state legislatures may prohibit spending by businesses on electoral speech. In McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, the Court validated limitations on electoral speech in McCain-Feingold. The Court could have decided Citizens United on relatively narrow grounds. Instead, it has explicitly drawn into question two of its precedents upholding limitations on political speech. It seems likely... Cato-at-liberty blogs http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2556083 Mon, 29 Jun 2009 19:43:00 +0100 2556083 http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2389673&cid=t_239168_87_f&fid=36438&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FObZ8YmPEcuQ%2F The so-called Citizens United case offers the Supreme Court a chance to severely curtail the free speech abuses of the Federal Election Commission. John Samples, Director of the Cato Institute’s Center for Representative Government, Institute for Justice Senior Attorney Steve Simpson and George Mason University law professor Allison Hayward weigh in. You can subscribe to Cato’s YouTube videos here and our Weekly Video podcast here. (Source: Cato-at-liberty) Cato-at-liberty blogs http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2389673 Mon, 04 May 2009 16:27:00 +0100 2389673