A potential crack has opened in the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in the Citizens United case. The Associated Press has reported that the Court will hear a challenge to campaign finance laws limiting how much an individual can give to political campaigns.
The justices agreed to hear an appeal from an Alabama resident and the RNC who are arguing that it is unconstitutional to stop a donor from giving more than $46,200 to political candidates and $70,800 to political committees and PACs.
This case is a double-threat: It could lead to a reopening of the issues raised in Citizens United, or it could lead the Court to double down on its ruling in Citizens United.
Rick Hasen, a University of California at Irvine law professor, is quoted as saying, "A ruling in this case could have important implications not only on the issue itself, but on the broader question whether the Court will change the standard for judging the constitutionality of limits on contributions, an issue the Court expressly declined to address in Citizens United."
I'm just a lowly law school graduate, but I think Citizen's United was a terrible decision, and I also believe that the incredible spending in the recent presidential election reinforces what a terrible decision it was. On the other hand, the evidence from the election suggests the validity of the old saying, "A fool and his money are soon parted." Consider the disaster that befell Karl Rove and his not-so-super PAC.
- 1 week