fj1200
05-20-2012, 01:24 PM
APNewsBreak: 22 states join campaign finance fight (http://news.yahoo.com/apnewsbreak-22-states-join-campaign-064738670.html)
The joining states, unlike Montana, ask the court to go further and reconsider core findings in Citizens United. They argue, for instance, it was wrong for the court to say unlimited independent expenditures rarely cause corruption or the appearance of corruption.
And other critics of the Citizens United decision who believe the court was wrong to grant corporations constitutional rights, have intervened and asked the court to reverse itself.
"There is a growing bipartisan consensus that Citizens United needs to be overturned, and Montana is leading the way," said Peter Schurman, spokesman for a group called Free Speech For People. "The Supreme Court has an opportunity to revisit Citizens United here. That is important because there is evidence everywhere that unlimited spending in our elections creates both corruption and the appearance for corruption."
On Friday, Montana's case was given a boost when U.S. Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Sheldon Whitehouse, D-D-R.I., signed on in support. The senators argue evidence following the Citizens United decision, where millions in unregulated money has poured into presidential elections, shows that large independent expenditures can lead to corruption.
So this article repeats at least three times that "unregulated" money can lead to corruption or that there is evidence about the "appearance for corruption" but evidence has not yet been presented. Can you even have evidence of an appearance or do you need actual evidence for actual corruption? It seems to me that this is just a backlash against an unpopular decision against the populism of too much money in politics. There have been plenty of studies IIRC that show that campaign finance laws lead to more power of incumbency as well as a lack of evidence that points to a link between money and voting patterns.
The joining states, unlike Montana, ask the court to go further and reconsider core findings in Citizens United. They argue, for instance, it was wrong for the court to say unlimited independent expenditures rarely cause corruption or the appearance of corruption.
And other critics of the Citizens United decision who believe the court was wrong to grant corporations constitutional rights, have intervened and asked the court to reverse itself.
"There is a growing bipartisan consensus that Citizens United needs to be overturned, and Montana is leading the way," said Peter Schurman, spokesman for a group called Free Speech For People. "The Supreme Court has an opportunity to revisit Citizens United here. That is important because there is evidence everywhere that unlimited spending in our elections creates both corruption and the appearance for corruption."
On Friday, Montana's case was given a boost when U.S. Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Sheldon Whitehouse, D-D-R.I., signed on in support. The senators argue evidence following the Citizens United decision, where millions in unregulated money has poured into presidential elections, shows that large independent expenditures can lead to corruption.
So this article repeats at least three times that "unregulated" money can lead to corruption or that there is evidence about the "appearance for corruption" but evidence has not yet been presented. Can you even have evidence of an appearance or do you need actual evidence for actual corruption? It seems to me that this is just a backlash against an unpopular decision against the populism of too much money in politics. There have been plenty of studies IIRC that show that campaign finance laws lead to more power of incumbency as well as a lack of evidence that points to a link between money and voting patterns.