We, the largely-bearded staff of SFB, are excited about this news. Also, Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn occasionally sports a beard; will this PAC support his reelection if he pinkie-promises not to shave it again? source
Super PACs are still a bad idea. Corporations should not be able to give unlimited sums to political campaigns. It is bad for our democracy.Bill Burton, co-founder of an Obama-supporting super PAC, Priorities USA. This is a significant question for Democrats: Should progressives who oppose the very existence of super PACs also oppose progressive super PACS? Or is the utilization of super PACS a necessary step to changing the legal framework that makes them possible? Burton seems to believes it’s the second. “Citizens United harms our country, not just the liberal cause,” he says. “I’m proud of the work we did at Priorities in this election, but this system is broken and needs reform.” source (paywall)
A defining characteristic of this election cycle was Super PACs and the hundreds of millions of dollars outside groups were spending to influence races. Now that it’s all over, we wanted to see which outside groups spent their money on succssful races and which did not. The result was our interactive Not-So-Super PACs: 2012’s Winners and Losers.
…
It’s a bit confusing at first, but the interactive version of this chart (behind the link) is awesome. The thickness of the lines indicate how much money was given, and the success rate of the various PACS is in ascending order on the X-axis. The take-home message? Democrats spent a lot less on super PACS this cycle, yet enjoyed a much, much higher success rate at the ballot box.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated Montana’s campaign donation limits, telling the federal judge who overturned it to outline his full reasoning so the panel can review the case.
The court intervened late Tuesday less than a week after the judge’s decision opened the door to unlimited money in state elections – during the height of election season.
Big news out of the 9th Circuit this morning, regarding the state of Montana’s continued efforts to regulate campaign finance post-Citizens United. We don’t expect this to be the end of the story though, and it seems increasingly likely that this will end up in front of the U.S. Supreme Court before this is all over.
$125 the price President Obama’s campaign paid for a slot of ad time in Ohio
$900 the price a conservative super PAC paid for the same amount of ad time in the same state source
A rarely-discussed fact about super PACS: Under federal law, they’re charged a substantially higher rate for ad time than candidates’ campaigns. One implication of this is that candidates who are supported primarily by super PACS get a lot less bang for their buck than candidates who pay for ads with their own campaigns. This excellent chart, courtesy of Paul Blumenthal at Huffington Post, says it all: 
Keep in mind that Florida is a must-win state for Mitt Romney, yet for all of his supposed financial advantages, he’s buying less ad time there than Obama (h/t Jon Chait).
I don’t think any of my colleagues on any cases vote the way they do for political reasons,” he said. “They vote the way they do because they have their own judicial philosophy.Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia • During an interview with Piers Morgan for “Piers Morgan Live” last night, refuting claims that he was feuding with Chief Justice John Roberts. The claims surfaced following the 5-4 upholding of the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate. Scalia, who is currently touring to promote his new book, also took time to defend the court’s infamous Citizens United decision. “I think Thomas Jefferson would have said the more speech, the better,” said Scalia, adding, “That’s what the First Amendment is all about. So long as the people know where the speech is coming from.” source (via • follow)
The Supreme Court has overruled the Montana Supreme Court decision limiting the Citizens United ruling to the federal level. This decision makes that controversial decision also apply to the state level as well. Read it here.
The Super PACs have played a key role, unfortunately, in my view, because most of them are negative ads. They’ve driven up the unfavorables of all of the candidates and made it much more difficult, frankly, to win the election in November.Sen. John McCain • Speaking on the 2012 presidential election, which he called “the nastiest I have ever seen.” Remember, this is coming from the guy who once was falsely accused of birthing a black child out of wedlock. So his standards are pretty high as far as nasty races go. McCain, a longtime advocate of campaign finance reform, went further, calling the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision “the worst decision the United States Supreme Court has made in many years.”
@shortformblog colbert should argue for citizen’s united at scotus. that would be a great civics lesson.
— josh sternberg (@joshsternberg) February 18, 2012
Inspired by Josh’s tweet above, a question for you guys: If Stephen Colbert were to argue this case in front of the Supreme Court, what should he say to keep corporate influence in politics alive? He’s been running a comedy SuperPAC for months, so he’d be perfect for this case. What sort of line of argument would you imagine him taking?
Congrats Tumblr!
Don’t screw this up Yahoo.
In 2007, I was...
I started tumblr when I was at one of the lowest points of...
Exclusive: How the Syrian Electronic Army hacked the...
soon
Yahumblr.
Time for Citizens United: Round 2? Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court stayed the Montana Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the state’s longstanding campaign finance laws banning corporate political spending, American Tradition Partnership v. Bullock. The decision came after American Tradition Partnership and two Montana businesses filed an application asking the Court to strike down the Montana Supreme Court’s decision. ATP now has until the end of March to formally request that the Court review the Montana Supreme Court’s decision. If they don’t, Montana’s decision would stand, but should they file the request, it would pave the way for a full review of the controversial Citizens United decision. (photo courtesy of flickr user kenudigit) source
![manicchill:
Montana’s Highest Court Rebukes Citizens United Ruling
Montana Attorney General Steve Bullock may have become the most, and simultaneously the least, popular person in America. In a stunning 5-2 decision, the Supreme Court of Montana rebuked the U.S. Supreme Court’s infamous Citizens United ruling. [more]
To be clear, this decision only applies to the state of Montana, not the country. But it’s still a quite notable decision, as it could define how the Citizens United ruling is interpreted at the state level. Read more at Manic, Chill.](http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lx8aiyBVib1qigl3bo1_500.jpg)
Montana’s Highest Court Rebukes Citizens United Ruling
Montana Attorney General Steve Bullock may have become the most, and simultaneously the least, popular person in America. In a stunning 5-2 decision, the Supreme Court of Montana rebuked the U.S. Supreme Court’s infamous Citizens United ruling. [more]
To be clear, this decision only applies to the state of Montana, not the country. But it’s still a quite notable decision, as it could define how the Citizens United ruling is interpreted at the state level. Read more at Manic, Chill.
Basically, it affirmed what we were all seeing on the streets, which is the average Missoulian wanted to have their voice heard … and they want their elected officials to fix the problem of corporate personhood. So I hope this message is heard and we get started on fixing the problem.Missoula, Montana Councilwoman Cynthia Wolken • Discussing her successful efforts last week to get a referendum passed in her city against the concept of corporate personhood, which was codified with the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court decision. While the vote — which had a 75/25 split at the polls — wasn’t binding, it is one step in the direction of encouraging Congress to pass an amendment to help fix the system, and one small push in a larger national movement. (thanks Michael Cote) source (via • follow)
Fighting back against “Citizens United:” Senate Democrats, led by Tom Udall, have introduced a constitutional amendment meant to blunt the effects of Citizen’s United, the Supreme Court decision that paved the way for unlimited, undisclosed campaign contributions by corporations. The amendment wouldn’t directly overturn CU, but rather give congresses—both federal and state—the authority to regulate campaign contributions and expenditures. Like most proposed constitutional amendments, it probably won’t get anywhere close to ratification, but hey, it rallies the base, right? source
Copyright 2009-2013 Ernie Smith • Ask us stuff! • E-mail us • Follow us on Twitter • Follow us on Facebook
Rick Santorum wants to outlaw teleprompters, OK with corporate influence
Tags: citizens united corporate influence gop gop 2012 outlawing stuff republicans rick santorum santorum stupid comments teleprompters 23 • PermalinkRead ShortFormBlog • Follow