![]() Indeed, the argument for allowing limits on contributions to super PACs is even clearer than this. ( Jud Campbell’s work is the most instructive here.) And as Justice Thomas has insisted (citing Campbell), “no evidence indicates that the First Amendment empowered judges to determine whether particular restrictions of speech promoted the general welfare.” Thus, on that reading, not only would corporate expenditures be regulable, but existing law, now unenforced, regulating contributions to independent political expenditures committees-now called “super PACs”-would also be constitutional. For as lawyers and scholars have increasingly recognized, the original meaning of the First Amendment gave legislatures broad authority to regulate the rules governing political campaigns, at least so long as such regulation was in pursuit of the general welfare. Valeo-he would certainly find in that 144-page-long opinion plenty of “policy-driven decision masquerading as constitutional law” which originalism would undo. ![]() Yet if he applied that same skepticism to the foundation of modern campaign finance law- Buckley v . Sullivan-calling the landmark 1964 free press opinion a “policy-driven decision masquerading as constitutional law”-he has been the most aggressive justice pressing limits on the regulation of campaign contributions and campaign spending. While Thomas has, on grounds of originalism, called for a reconsideration of New York Times v. Justice Clarence Thomas is the clearest example. Sarah Lipton-Lubet John Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh Are Rigging the Supreme Court Docket Read More
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |