#ELB: Breaking: #SCOTUS Declines Soft Money Case; Thomas and Gorsuch Would Vote to Hear http://electionlawblog.org/?p=92665
-
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 -
-
-
Don't Supreme Court justices have unlimited capital?
-
I'd say no
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Likely that Roberts thinks he doesn't need to carry McConnell's water: Congress can change these limits without a constitutional holding
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.