U.S. Supreme Court Receives 12 Amicus Briefs Against Campaign Finance Law and 8 Amicus Briefs in Support of Law

The only election law case scheduled for oral argument in the U.S. Supreme Court is McCutcheon v Federal Election Commission, 12-536, which will be heard October 8, 2013. The issue is the federal law that caps the amount of money individuals may give in any two-year cycle to all federal candidates and federal campaign committees combined.

Twelve amicus briefs in support of the Republican Party and Shaun McCutcheon (the individual who wants to exceed the limits) have been filed. They are from: (1) Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty; (2) Senator Mitch McConnell; (3) CATO Institute; (4) the Center for Competitive Politics; (5) the National Republican Senatorial Committee, jointly with the Republican Congressional Committee; (6) the American Civil Rights Union; (7) the Committee for Justice; (8) the Institute for Justice; (9) the Cause of Action; (10) the Thomas Jefferson Center; (11) a combined brief on behalf of the Tea Party Leadership Fund, the National Defense PAC, Combat Veterans for Congress PAC, Conservative Melting Pot PAC, and Freedom’s Defense Fund; (12) a combined brief on behalf of the Libertarian National Committee, the Constitution Party National Committee, the Free Speech Coalition, the US Justice Foundation, Gun Owners Foundation, English First, Abraham Lincoln Foundation, Institute on the Constitution, Western Center for Journalism, Policy Analysis Center, Conservative Legal Defense & Education Fund.

The eight amicus briefs in support of the federal law are from: (1) the Brennan Center for Justice; (2) Americans for Campaign Finance Reform; (3) Representatives Chris Van Hollen and David Price; (4) Professor Lawrence Lessig; (5) 85 Democratic members of the U.S. House; (6) a combined brief for the Campaign Legal Center, AARP, Asian Americans Advancing Justice, Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, Common Cause, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, the League of Women Voters, Progressives United, and Public Campaign; (7) a combined brief for the Communications Workers of America, Greenpeace, NAACP, Sierra Club, American Federation of Teachers, Main Street Alliance, Ourtime.org, People for the American Way, Rock the Vote, U.S. Pirg, Working Families Organization, and Demos; (8) the National Education Association.

Except for the brief of the American Civil Rights Union, the briefs in support of the Republican Party can be read here. The link, from Scotusblog, goes to the American Bar Association’s web page. Soon the same link will probably also include all the amicus briefs in support of the law. In the meantime, the briefs that aren’t linked at Scotusblog can be seen via the links in the paragraphs above.


Comments

U.S. Supreme Court Receives 12 Amicus Briefs Against Campaign Finance Law and 8 Amicus Briefs in Support of Law — No Comments

  1. Can ANY body see a dollar amount in the 1st Amdt — including even the SCOTUS MORONS ???

    See the ancient 20 dollars in the 7th Amdt — when a dollar really meant something.

  2. I wish they whould strike down all campaign finance laws on the grounds that Congress does not have the power to make these laws. The constitution gives them the power to regulate elections not campaigns.

  3. Do you feel Congress has the authority to require disclosure of campaign contributions?

  4. I take a soapbox to the downtown area of my city, stand upon it and start to talk about my perspective on some matter of politics, religion, or fhe economy.

    Can we agree I’m exercising my right of free speech?

    After a few minutes a coupleof Sikorsky helicopters hover overhead. They’re both equipped with a bank of stadium-ready loud speakers, and out of those speakers comes an opposing perspective. Owing to their overwhelming capability, the message they’re broadcasting gets heard…quite easily…and mine is drowned out.

    Who has the ‘freer’ speech then, d’ya think?

    And would you be happy..,really happy, with governance delivered by a group of legislators each beholden to only one billionaire who bankrolled their campaigns, and is ready to bankroll their next campaigns? Even if the billionaire is Warren Buffet?
    George Soros? Or are you confident they can be outbid by the Kochs?

    Or…whatever your political persuasion, are you content to put our democracy up for auction where only he wealthiest Americans can afford to bid?

  5. The answer is not to blot out the helicopter loudspeaker, but public funding, so the person on the soapbox could afford his own high-powered speakers.

  6. ANY electronic loudspeakers in 1789-1791 ???

    What about that olde disturbing the PEACE stuff ???

  7. For the clueless MORON SCOTUS folks –

    See the book –

    Sources of Our Liberties, edited by Richard L. Perry (Am Bar Assn, 1959 — just before the SCOTUS MORONS went N-U-T-S in the 1960s

    — to produce the INSANITY stuff in current politics.

  8. “THE” answer? No. One of a few, and I think a poor one at that. Public financing of campaigns is, after all, a means of curtailing the money which can be spent on a campaign. So why not simply limit individual contributions? What makes public financing a superior alternative?

  9. Some early HOT AIR balloons in 1789.

    Later more used in the Civil War and WW I.

    How about putting the Hot Air from each robot party hack’s mouth into a balloon and send the morons to the next county, state or nation ???

  10. Incidentally…the lineup of amicus briefers says all you need to now about who wants seats in the democracy auction tent.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.