#ELB: Breaking: #SCOTUS Declines Soft Money Case; Thomas and Gorsuch Would Vote to Hear http://electionlawblog.org/?p=92665
Some thoughts on this surprising development 1. This case was up on appeal not cert, meaning it made it very likely the Court would take it
-
-
2. The fact that only two Justices (Gorsuch and Thomas) would have heard the case meant Alito, Kennedy and Roberts likely did not
-
3. The likeliest explanation is that they've had enough campaign finance for a while and want to use their capital elsewhere, e.g., abortion
-
4. But this says a lot about Gorsuch (a) he's not shy; (b) he may be as big a campaign finance opponent as Justice Thomas
-
5. In short term, affirmance good news for campaign finance reformers. Not only is soft money upheld, but no new rule on contribution limits
-
6. A contrary ruling in soft money case could have called all individual contribution limits into question.
-
7. But today's ruling exacerbates disparity between political party limited contributions and unlimited super pacs and 501c4s.
-
8. Many believe that strengthening super pacs and 501c4s at expense of parties has contributed to polarization and gridlock.
-
9. Legislatively, it would make sense to loosen party contribution limits in exchange for true and effective disclosure. It's a good deal
-
10. But one McConnell would likely reject. <fin>
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.