"The Long Vigil for Citizens United" - why the delay benefits corporate influence.

[clear eye]

According to Tony Mauro of The Blog of Legal Times,

This morning, the Court gaveled its final session of 2009 to a close without a decision in Citizens United. Speculation has ialready ntensified over what is causing the delay, and what it could mean. The general consensus is that a proliferation of concurrences and dissents has slowed issuance of the final ruling, pointing toward the kind of mix-and-match majority decision that will be hard to decipher -- and harder to put into effect. With the 2010 congressional campaign season drawing near, that could mean confusion over the role that corporations can play in the next election.

I've read elsewhere that Justice Ginsburg (to her credit) pointed out that calling unlimited corporate campaign donations "protected political speech", would allow the foreign financial interests who have invested in corporations headquartered in the U.S. to donate to our campaigns w/o restriction. It'll take some fancy footwork to write a ruling justifying that.

In the meantime, boosters of this nightmare scenario are actually better off in the 2010 elections w/o a ruling b/c this situation makes the current restrictions passed on corporate participation entirely unenforceable in lower courts. Whatever exceptions the final ruling may have to include won't be operative in practice until the ruling is issued. What federal prosecutor will haul a corporation into court for dumping tons of money into someone's campaign breaking current federal law, with a decision on its Constitutionality in limbo as it is now?