Even as New Jersey Governor Chris Christie faces an audit of his federally funded tourism advertisements, an influx of campaign money makes commercials paid for by taxpayers or corporate sponsors increasingly attractive to cash-strapped politicians.
Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy has been had. "A campaign finance system that pairs corporate independent expenditures with effective disclosure has not existed before today," he confidently wrote in his majority opinion in Citizens United, the Court’s 2010 decision that freed corporations, unions and others to spend unlimited sums on electioneering.
Do corporations have a right to religious liberty? The contraceptive mandate of the Affordable Care Act has made this abstract-sounding question into the hottest constitutional issue of the day -- hotter, even, than the right to privacy from government snooping. The U.S. Supreme Court has gotten into the game by agreeing to hear a case on the issue and, in the meantime, temporarily staying the law under a range of circumstances. The stage is now set for a battle that will end in the court’s second major Obamacare decision later this year.
In summarily dismissing a Montana case in which the state’s high court had upheld an anti- corruption statute regulating corporate spending on elections, the U.S. Supreme Court this week opted to see no evil, hear no evil and speak no truth.
The U.S. Supreme Court blocked a century-old Montana ban on corporate campaign spending, signaling the justices may reinforce a 2010 ruling that allowed companies to donate unlimited amounts to influence elections.
A divided U.S. Supreme Court threw out Montana’s ban on corporate campaign spending in a reaffirmation of the 2010 decision that unleashed super-PACs and left federal elections awash in money from big spenders.