SCOTUS Considers Case Challenging Citizens United

Supreme Court

Today in Washington, D.C. - June 14, 2012:
The House is in Recess.

The Senate reconvened and resumed consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 1940, the flood insurance bill. At noon, the Senate will begin reconsideration of the failed cloture vote on the nomination of Mari Carmen Aponte to be ambassador to El Salvador. At 12:30, the Senate began a re-vote on cloture on the nomination. Later today, the Senate may resume consideration of the farm bill, S. 3240, and vote on amendments. Yesterday, the Senate voted to table two amendments to the farm bill.

With respect to the Farm Bill, Senators who have large numbers of constituents with interests in Agriculture in there state are not happy with the proposed Democrat bill. One of those states is Arkansas.  Senator John Boozman (R-AR) said in his recent newsletter to his constituents. "The Senate is debating the farm bill on the chamber floor. I have concerns this bill is a one-size-fits-all approach to mitigating risk to agriculture producers. This is not a good safety net for southern crops particularly rice and peanut farmers. On Monday, I expressed my opposition on the Senate floor in this speech."

The Supreme Court is scheduled today to meed in closed session to discuss the previously decided Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission which was a 2010 decision holding that corporations can make unlimited independent expenditures using general treasury funds to support or oppose candidates.

ABC News asks, “Why would the justices revisit a case so soon after ruling on it? Because a lower court – the Montana Supreme Court – issued a ruling in 2011 that appears to contradict Citizens United. The Montana court upheld a ban on corporate spending in Montana state elections, ruling that ‘unlike Citizens United, this case concerns Montana law, Montana elections and it arises from Montana history.’

“The Supreme Court agreed in February to block temporarily, or ‘stay,’ the Montana decision from going into effect until it decides whether to take up the case. Now, parties from both sides have issued written briefs in the case, and the Supreme Court must decide how to deal with it.”

George Will wrote recently, “Reasons for the Supreme Court to reconsider Citizens United are nonexistent. The ruling’s primary effect has been to give unions and incorporated nonprofit advocacy groups freedom to spend what they choose on political speech as long as they do not coordinate with candidates or campaigns. Campaign ‘reformers,’ who advocate speech rationing, apparently regard evidence irrelevant to argument, probably because there is no evidence for their assertion that 2012 has been dominated by corporate money unleashed by Citizens United.”

---

Tags: SCOTUS, Supreme Court, Citizens United, Washington, D.C., U.S. Senate, Mari Carmen Aponte, Nominee, Ambassador to El Salvador To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!