A pair of U.S. Supreme Court precedents that have allowed the federal government to ban corporate and union spending on election campaigns appear to be in jeopardy in the wake of an unusual oral argument on Sept. 9.
After a 90-minute hearing in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, it seemed likely that the Court, swayed by arguments in favor of First Amendment rights for corporations, was ready to embark on a new course that critics say could unleash a flood of corporate wealth into elections that are already awash in more regulated campaign spending.One measure that has gained favor from academics bolsters this prediction: The lawyers defending the precedents were hit by more questions (56) from the justices than the lawyers challenging the precedents at issue in the case (47). The side that receives the most questions usually loses, according to statistical studies.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]