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.
