Judges have no special expertise in identifying or balancing social benefits and social losses. . . Their rules turned out to be flawed. One of their flaws is that they pushed down the standards for public discourse.
One reason public discourse is so vile: We’ve forgotten the 1st Amendment’s meaning Read More »
“Progressive” Supreme Court decisions that led directly or indirectly to the orgy of anonymous spending
How “progressive” court decisions promoted the rise of dark money Read More »
But Citizens United included a second decision, one rarely mentioned. In this part of the case, the court upheld federal laws requiring contributors to political ads to publicly reveal their names. Unlike the first ruling, the second was a constitutional mistake. Although the court has since reaffirmed its position, it should promptly reconsider.
With due respect to the Supreme Court, some campaign finance laws are unconstitutional Read More »
This article was first published on the American Thinker website. Some on the left now argue that only individuals—not businesses
A Liberal Supreme Court Majority Grants Businesses Bill of Rights Protection Read More »
This article was first published at the American Thinker website. Many commentators and politicians have attacked the Supreme Court’s 2010
New Study Shows Campaign Disclosure Rules Violate First Amendment Read More »
In a recent posting, I wrote: [I]t is dubious whether the Constitution even gives Congress power to regulate the source
Federal “Campaign Finance” Laws are Mostly Unconstitutional Read More »
If you have any doubt about the ability of the political Left to set the agenda in this country, look
The Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC has generated a great deal of uninformed, and sometimes hypocritical, whining.
