Corporations

The 2010 Citizens United decision was premised on the dubious notion that expenditures made "independently" of candidates by groups like Super PACs are less likely to have a corruptive influence than direct contributions to candidates and parties. In Tuesday's oral arguments in McCutcheon v. FEC, the latest case to challenge campaign finance limits, at least some justices acknowledged the folly of their reasoning in Citizens United, but nonetheless appear likely to further restrict Congress' ability to limit money in politics.

-- by Bob Sloan, Guest Contributor

"The taxpayers have been left holding the bag.... As a result of this I think there is going to be a lot more oversight."

Those were statements made by Nevada Assemblyman James Ohrenschall in an interview on Vegas Inc. September 21. Mr. Ohrenschall is the former chairman of the Legislature's Interim Finance Committee on Industrial Programs. At the time of that interview, the IFC Committee was meeting to investigate facts that prompted his concerns.

On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a case that could further expand the reach of its controversial ruling that political spending is a form of speech protected by the First Amendment -- and which could give the one percent even more influence over politics.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: September 30, 2013

CONTACT: Brendan Fischer, brendan@prwatch.org

MADISON -- Texas Republican Attorney General Greg Abbott has issued an Open Records Letter Ruling rejecting an effort by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) to declare itself immune from the state's public records law, after the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) and the Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas filed briefs in the matter.