3 ms·
except that the _consequence_ of CU was basically unlimited spending on political campaigns by SuperPACs. the ACLU may have been right about the particulars th
by insane_dreamer 2mo ago
except that the _consequence_ of CU was basically unlimited spending on political campaigns by SuperPACs.
the ACLU may have been right about the particulars they were arguing but they missed the bigger picture of how this would open the floodgates of campaign financing
- tpmoney 2mo agoThe CU decision didn't foreclose the government from crafting a different law to address the issue in a more narrow and content neutral way, but congress being the dysfunctional clown show that it is, hasn't. CU also didn't really open any floodgates, it left the state of the law in the same state it was 8 years earlier. It's not like the BCRA was a law that had a long and storied history, it was passed and struck down within the span of two presidential terms.
- insane_dreamer 2mo agoabsolutely, it's congress' fault too for not creating new election funding laws you're right that CU didn't directly open the floodgates, though it did immediately unlock the option for companies to spend from their general funds without limit But the bigger problem was SCOTUS' decision provided the reasoning that downstream courts could rely on in their decisions, and _those_ opened the floodgates (Speechnow.org vs FEC specifically)