Sen. Baucus’ constitutional amendment to dismantle the Citizens United ruling: “Baucus’ campaign finance amendment gets hearing” by The Associated Press in the Billings Gazette.

“Money Unlimited” by Jeffrey Toobin in the The New Yorker.

“Citizens United: The Untold Story” by Joe Palazzolo in the Wall Street Journal’s Law Blog.

“How a Kennedy Concurrence Turned into a Majority Opinion in Citizens United” by Debra Cassens Weiss in the American Bar Association Journal.

Needham, Massachusetts:  “Needham Town Meeting calls for constitutional amendment on campaign spending” by Evan Allen in the Boston Globe.

Federal: “How to Beat Citizens United” by E.J. Dionne, Jr. in The Washington Post.

Arkansas: “Arkansas attorney general certifies ballot wording for item on lobbying, campaign finance” by The Associated Press in The Republic.

California: “State political watchdog chair wants bloggers to reveal payments” by Brian Joseph in the Orange County Register.

California: “California ethics czar urges disclosure of payments to Web pundits” by Patrick McGreevey in the Los Angeles Times.

California: “California looks to crack down on political bloggers paid by campaigns” by Jim Sanders in The Sacramento Bee.

Virginia: “New Electronic Campaign Filing Lauded in Virginia” by The Associated Press in Governing.

Campaign Finance

Federal: “Md. lawmakers take on political spending spree” by John Fritze in the Baltimore Sun.

Vermont: “Vermont lawmakers work to unravel Citizens United ruling” by Nicole Gaudiano in the Burlington Free Press.

Missouri: “St. Louis attorney pleads guilty in campaign donation scheme” by Virginia Young in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

Lobbying

“Courting the White House: Don’t call it lobbying” by Anna Palmer and Abby Phillip in Politico.

“White House Opens Door to Big Donors, and Lobbyists Slip In” by Mike Mcintire and Michael Luo in The New York Times.

“Is dialoguing lobbying?” by Donovan Slack in Politico.

California:  “The lobbyists’ bumbles and foibles” by Ray LeBov in Capitol Weekly.

Campaign Finance

“McCain predicts ‘huge’ U.S. campaign finance scandals” by Alina Selyukh (Reuters) in the Chicago Tribune.

“McCain Calls SCOTUS Decision on Campaign Spending ‘Stupid’” by Rebekah Metzler in the Chicago Tribune.

“Beware of the super-PAC: More lawmakers are fearing an ad ambush” by Joe Picard in The Hill.

Montana: “Conservative groups challenging campaign finance law formally seek Supreme Court intervention” by The Associated Press in The Republic.

Lobbying

“Lobbyists reaping $220M bonanza” by Rich Karlin in the Albany Times Union.

“Memo details oil, gas industry lobbying expenditures” by The Associated Press in the News Tribune.

“Review of lobbyist spending prompts House ethics meeting” by Jason Clayworth in the Des Moines Register.

U.S. District Court Judge Marvin Aspen has removed limits on political contributions to groups that make independent expenditures on behalf of or against a candidate.

The decision in Personal Pac v. McGuffage specifically overturns the annual limits of $10,000 per individual, $20,000 per corporation or union, and $50,000 from a political action committee to an independent expenditure committee.

Noting the U.S. Supreme Court struck down such limits in the Citizens United case, Judge Aspen concluded that preventing actual and apparent corruption cannot justify restrictions on independent expenditures.

Campaign Finance

“FEC told to tread carefully with post-Citizens United rule” by Rachel Leven in The Hill.

“FEC moves on outdated rules” by Robin Bravender in Politico.

“DC mayor defends himself amid probe into campaign finance irregularities” by The Associated Press in The Washington Post.

Super PACs

“Super PACs Outspent Candidates in Run-Up to Tuesday” by Brody Mullins and Alicia Mundy  in The Wall Street Journal.

“Super PACs Could Drive Total 2012 Election Spending to $9.8B” by Cotton Delo in Ad Age.

Lobbying

“Son of legendary lobbyist starts own firm” by Kevin Bogardus in The Hill.

Redistricting

“Between the Lines: The Last Two Redistricting Holdouts” by Shira Toeplitz, Abby Livingston, and Joshua Miller in Roll Call.

Citizens in 53 communities approved a measure on Vermont’s Town Meeting Day, coinciding with Super Tuesday, calling on the United States Congress to begin the process of amending the Constitution in order to clarify that corporations do not share the same rights as natural persons possess.

The push for such a measure is a result of the decision of the United States Supreme Court in the Citizen’s United case.

Bernie Sanders, U.S. Senator from Vermont, introduced such an amendment in December and appreciated support by his constituents for his efforts, noting “Unlike the U.S. Supreme Court, Town Meeting Day voters understood that corporations are not people.”

The U.S. Supreme Court has stayed a Montana Supreme Court decision upholding the state’s law prohibiting independent political expenditures, related to a candidate, by a corporation.

In December of last year, the Montana Supreme Court found Citizens United v. FEC did not compel invalidating the state’s 1912 Corrupt Practices Act, concluding the state, because of its history and the history of the Act, has a compelling interest to impose statutory restrictions. The Montana Court emphasized the Citizens United decision allows restrictions to be upheld if the government demonstrates a sufficiently strong interest.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling stays the state Court’s ruling until either a formal appeal to the US Supreme Court is denied, or, if an appeal is accepted, the US Supreme Court mandates the termination of the stay.

In the one page order by the US Supreme Court, Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote, “Montana’s experience, and experience elsewhere since this Court’s decision in [Citizens United v. FEC], make it exceedingly difficult to maintain that independent expenditures by corporations ‘do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.’ A petition for certiorari will give the Court an opportunity to consider whether, in light of the huge sums currently deployed to buy candidates’ allegiance, Citizens United should continue to hold sway.”

Associate Justice Steven G. Breyer joined in Justice Ginsburg’s statement.

Photo of the United States Supreme Court building frieze by UpstateNYer on Wikipedia.

A Montana Supreme Court’s decision upholding the state’s law prohibiting independent political expenditures by a corporation related to a candidate, in spite of Citizens United v. FEC, has been appealed to the US Supreme Court.

According to the SCOTUSblog, Justice Kennedy has called for a response from the state of Montana by 5 p.m. on Wednesday, February 15.

For a detailed explanation of the appeal, see Lyle Denniston’s article on SCOTUSblog at http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/02/new-citizens-united-sequel-2.

In December of last year, the Montana Supreme Court found Citizens United v. FEC did not compel invalidating the state’s 1912 Corrupt Practices Act.

In the Court’s majority opinion in Western Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Attorney General of the State of Montana, the Court wrote, “The corporate power that can be exerted with unlimited political spending is still a vital interest to the people of Montana.”

The Court concluded the state, because of its history and the history of the Act, has a compelling interest to impose statutory restrictions, emphasizing the Citizens United decision allows restrictions to be upheld if the government demonstrates a sufficiently strong interest.

In making its argument, the decision asserts that a “material factual distinction between the present case and Citizens United is the extent of the regulatory burden imposed by the challenged law.” The Court found in contrast to the “complexity and ambiguity” of restrictions for federal PACs, PACs formed and maintained in the state are “easily implemented” by the filing of “simple and straight-forward forms or reports.”

Attorney James Bopp, Jr., counsel of record for the petitioner, argues for the US Supreme Court to summarily reverse the Montana decision, writing, “The lower court’s refusal to follow Citizens United is such an obvious, blatant disregard of its duty to follow this Court’s decisions that summary reversal is proper.”

“’Occupy Courts’ to hit Citizens United” by MJ Lee on Politico.

“Lobbying for just a nod, a mention” by Abby Phillip on Politico.

“Perry’s K Street Allies Jump to Romney, Not Gingrich” by Eliza Newlin Carney and Kate Ackley on Roll Call.

The practical result of the U.S. Supreme Court’s January 21, 2010, Citizens United decision allows corporations, labor unions, and others to make independent expenditures and electioneering communications regarding candidates without restrictions.

We are approaching the second anniversary of Citizens United. We said at the time of the decision the biggest impact would come when states chose to react – or not react – to the decision. We have tracked what the states are doing – whether the state has passed new laws, clarified existing laws, or has bills pending.

Be sure to take a look at the essential and up-to-date report we have made available on our website regarding how the states are reacting to Citizens United.

Just in time for the second anniversary of the Citizens United decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, the Sunlight Foundation is crafting a bill that would require disclosure of the money behind independent expenditures, SuperPACs, and more. Called the Stop Undisclosed Payments in Elections from Ruining Public Accountability in Campaigns Act, the text of the bill (in its current form) can be found here.

According to the announcement on their website, the SUPERPAC Act would require the following:

• Ensure disclosure of donors who fund independent expenditures and electioneering communications made by Super PACs or other 501(c) organizations. Donors giving to an organization for other purposes may remain anonymous if the organization establishes separate accounts for non-election related spending.

• Require real-time, online disclosure of all reports. Data must be in searchable, sortable, machine-readable formats and reports must include unique IDs for all filers.

• Require disclaimers (stand-by-your-ad statements) and identification of top funders in the ad.

• Require registered lobbyists to report their spending on independent expenditures and electioneering communications.

• Require all candidates and committees to file electronically with the Federal Election Commission.

The organization is encouraging input from the public in order to improve the proposed legislation via publicmarkup.org.

Federal campaign contributions are prohibited from individuals living in the U.S. but not admitted for permanent residency, the Supreme Court affirmed today.

The Supreme Court, through a summary disposition, upheld a lower court ruling finding aliens who are in the United States on temporary work visas may not make political contributions to federal candidates or political parties, as proscribed in 2 U.S.C. §441e and its implementing regulations.

Bluman v FEC was brought on behalf of two plaintiffs, a doctor in residency and a recent law school graduate, both citizens of other countries. They argued the Court’s earlier Citizens United v FEC decision mandated allowing financial political contributions by the plaintiffs as part of their protected free speech.

In upholding the law and denying the plaintiff the relief they sought, the lower court had written in its decision, “It is fundamental to the definition of our national political community that foreign citizens do not have a constitutional right to participate in, and thus may be excluded from, activities of democratic self-government.”

Today’s one-line summary disposition by the Supreme Court affirms the lower court’s holding without judicial opinion.

Photo of the U.S. Supreme Court Building by Joe Ravi on Wikipedia.

In response to the Supreme Court’s Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision, there are states and cities taking action to deny personhood to corporations. The Montana Supreme Court upheld a ban on corporate spending in local elections and a measure was introduced in the Vermont Legislature calling for a constitutional amendment distinguishing the rights of individuals from those of corporations.

The city councils of Los Angeles, Oakland, Albany, Boulder, and New York City are listed in the article as having passed resolutions – some calling for a constitutional amendment –  eliminating corporate personhood, which could affect SuperPAC spending in their jurisdictions.

For the full story, read “Cities, states pass resolutions against corporate personhood” by Bailey McCann on CivSourceonline.com.