Much has already been written about the impact of the US Supreme Court’s ruling in McCutcheon v. FEC this week; some of it actually accurate. On its face, the ruling in that case has to do with aggregate contribution limits and has nothing to do with state pay-to-play laws. (If you want to read one… Continue Reading
A new complaint was filed with the Federal Election Commission yesterday alleging that Chevron USA violated campaign finance laws and corollary “federal pay-to-play” laws by contributing $2.5 million to the Congressional Leadership Fund, a Super PAC tied by press reporting and former staffers to House Speaker Boehner.
Back in April, this blog boldly predicted that the United States Supreme Court would exert little effort in dismissing the State of Montana’s effort to convince us that the Court’s holding in Citizens United v. FEC, and the First Amendment analysis that supported it, did not apply in Big Sky Country.
As a follow-up to my post yesterday on the future of Citizens United, the folks at LXBN TV conducted a follow-up interview which I’m posting here.
The United States Supreme Court has recently announced that it might be revisiting its uber-controversial opinion Citizens United v. FEC. The ruling at issue was in the form of a little-noticed order entered by the Court staying a Montana Supreme Court opinion declining to enforce Citizens United. Nothing controversial there.
On Wednesday, June 29, the Securities and Exchange Commission unanimously approved the final text of a new rule under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 directed at preventing pay-to-play practices by investment advisers.
Citizens United v. FEC has sparked election law commentary over the limits of government efforts to restrict political speech. Most recently, Senator Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Congressman Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) are set to unveil “responsive” federal legislation containing federal pay-to-play prohibitions with the apparent support of at least one Republican, Rep. Mike Castle (R-Del.).
Pay-to-play bloggers analyze the Citizens United v. FEC Decision and its impact on state pay-to-play legislation across the country.