27 January 2010

Another Citizens United Shoe To Drop

An en banc oral argument in a campaign finance case in the D.C. Circuit involving contribution restrictions argued for by the FEC for 527 organizations revealed deep skepticism of the constitutional validity of campaign finance regulations far beyond those expressly considered by the U.S. Supreme Court in its landmark Citizens United decision of last week. Last week's decision invalidated limits on independent campaign expenditures by corporations while upholding disclosure requirements.

The appellate judges had great difficulty seeing how the FEC regulations could be valid in light of the narrow conception of permissible anti-corruption justifications for campaign finance laws articulated by Justice Kennedy's opinion in the Citizens United case.

1 comment:

Michael Malak said...

Judge Kavanaugh and FEC attorney Kolker both totally missed the point on disclosure.

The point of disclosure is not to prevent "corruption", for it is impossible to corrupt someone who is not yet in office. The point is to prevent fraud against the voters. If voters think a politician is representing them, and that politician hides funding sources only to later grant those funding sources political favors, then that constitutes fraud against the voters.