Analysis: Two precedents in jeopardy (past rulings upholding campaign finance reform)

[usregimechange]

If supporters of federal curbs on political campaign spending by corporations were counting on Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., and Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., to hesitate to strike down such restrictions, they could take no comfort from the Supreme Court’s 93-minute hearing Wednesday on that historic question. Despite the best efforts of four other Justices to argue for ruling only very narrowly, the strongest impression was that they had not convinced the two members of the Court thought to be still open to that approach. At least the immediate prospect was for a sweeping declaration of independence in politics for companies and advocacy groups formed as corporations.

The Court probed deeply into Congress’ reasoning in its decades-long attempt to restrict corporate influence in campaigns for the Presidency and Congress, in a special sitting to hear a second time the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (08-205). At issue was whether the Court was ready to overturn two of its precedents — one from 1990, the other from 2003 — upholding such limitations.

From all appearances, not one of the nine Justices — including the newest Justice, Sonia Sotomayor — appeared to move away from what their positions had been expected in advance to be. In her first argument, Sotomayor fervently joined in the effort to keep any resulting decision narrow — seemingly, the minority position but one she had been assumed to hold.

Three Justices — Anthony M. Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas — have explicitly urged the Court to overturn the two precedents that sustained congressional limits on campaign financing by corporations and labor unions. Kennedy and Thomas only seemed to reinforce that position on Wednesday; Thomas remained silent, but had given no indication earlier of a change of mind.

More:

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/analysis-two-precedents-in-jeopardy/

[Statistical]

1. The funny/weird thing is that Roberts not Kennedy is the swing vote.

Kennedy is very harsh critic of the "artificial limitations" on speech. His belief not mine.

Roberts seems to be leaning towards reforming the restrictions not blowing them wide open.

The interesting thing is it is not a yes or no type answer more sliding scale.

You got 3 justices at a 1 (complete removal of restricting on funding of speech), you got 4 more at a 7-8 (keep most restrictions, some minor changes), then you got two in the middle say a 5.

Now Neither extreme camps can "win" without the middle. How far either side is willing to move to build a majority will determine the outcome.

[usregimechange]

2. I think there is a chance the Right bloc (as you note including Kennedy) will blow it all to bits