Supreme Court declines to hear Iowa campaign finance challenge

[Eugene]

Source: Reuters

BY LAWRENCE HURLEY
WASHINGTON Mon Apr 7, 2014 10:34am EDT

(Reuters) - Ducking a new case on the divisive issue of campaign finance, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected a challenge to an Iowa law that bans corporate contributions in state elections.

The court declined to take up the case just days after it issued a ruling lifting limits on the aggregate amount individual donors can give in federal elections.

By opting not to hear the case, the court left intact an 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling from June 2013 that upheld the ban. By so doing, the court indicated it was unwilling for now to press ahead with further deregulation of campaign finance following the 5-4 ruling on Wednesday in the case of McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission.

Iowa Right to Life Committee Inc, an anti-abortion group, challenged the ban, saying it violated the free speech and equal protection of the law provisions of the U.S. Constitution. The group sued after Iowa revised its laws in light of the 2010 Supreme Court ruling Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, in which the court said corporations and unions could make unlimited independent expenditures that are not coordinated with a campaign.

[font size=1]-snip-[/font]


Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/07/us-usa-court-election-idUSBREA360XH20140407

[perdita9]

1. I wonder if Roberts and his 4 minions are feeling the heat from last week's ruling

Everything I've seen on it has been overwhelmingly negative, including several conservative pundits.

[defacto7]

3. Think about it.

They feel heat from nothing. Only congress can touch them and then only under constitutional level terms.

The SCOTUS has no overseeing body in reality. They own us.

Scalia said it all when asked about a comment by the President concerning a ruling, Scalia replied, "What can HE do to me?" (nothing)

[KeepItReal]

2. The same court said Montana COULD NOT ban corporate political money

WTF?


"The Supreme Court has struck down a Montana ban on corporate political money, ruling 5 to 4 that the controversial 2010 Citizens United ruling applies to state and local elections.

The court broke in American Tradition Partnership v. Bullock along the same lines as in the original Citizens United case, when the court ruled that corporate money is speech and thus corporations can spend unlimited amounts on elections.

“The question presented in this case is whether the holding of Citizens United applies to the Montana state law,” the majority wrote. “There can be no serious doubt that it does.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/supreme-courts-montana-decision-strengthens-citizens-united/2012/06/25/gJQA8Vln1V_blog.html

[Indydem]

4. Corporations can still donate to non-candidate groups.

Iowa's ban is on contributions directly to candidates.