Corp/Union Spending Bans Nixed; Disclosures Live

The early news:

The U.S. Supreme Court's opinion in the Citizen's United case, a key campaign finance case was released today. "The judgment of the D.C. Circuit is reversed, in an opinion of the Court written by Justice Kennedy. Justice Stevens filed a partial dissent, which was read from the bench, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor. Justice Thomas dissents in part and concurs in part."

Selected live blog commentary from SCOTUS blog is below:

Austin v. Mich is overrule, And so is the part of McConnell v. FEC that upheld the resitrictions on independent corporate expenditures

In dissent, or partial dissnent is Stevens, joined by Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Breyer

The Court does uphold the disclosure requirements for organizations like Citizens United

Much will depend on the wording, but today's decision is a small revolution in campaign finance law. The Court's decision overturns the previously settled distinction between corporate and individual expenditures in American elections.

The decision presumably applies equally to state and local elections, given that the Court recognizes a First Amendment right. And the ruling almost certainly applies to both corporate and union treasury funds.

Justice Kennedy has finished reading from the opinion and Justice Stevens is now reading from the dissent.

Total pages of the opinion: 176. Certainly the longest of the Term so far.

To clarify: Justice Thomas' dissent is limited to the part of the decision that upholds the disclosure requirements for Citizens United.

We should also note that the opinion applies only to independent expenditures by corporations. Corporations were already free to spend on political campaigns through their political actions committees.

To clarify: Justice Thomas' dissent is limited to the part of the decision that upholds the disclosure requirements for Citizens United.

We should also note that the opinion applies only to independent expenditures by corporations. Corporations were already free to spend on political campaigns through their political actions committees.

From The Supreme Court’s ruling on campaign finance upheld these requirements:

** Disclosure requirement: Any corporation that spends more than $10,000 in a year to produce or air the kind of election season ad covered by federal restrictions must file a report with the Federal Election Commission revealing the names and addresses of anyone who contributed $1,000 or more to the ad’s preparation or distribution.

** Disclaimer requirement: If a political ad is not authorized by a candidate or a political committee, the broadcast of the ad must say who is responsible for its content, plus the name and address of the group behind the ad.

Justice Clarence Thomas was the lone dissenter as the Court upheld those requirements.

This means a much more open regime of independent expenditures by corporations and unions who will now be bound only by disclosures requirements if they do not coordinate with campaigns.