Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Amicus Scholars Brief in Citizens United Reargument

Amicus Scholars Brief in Citizens United Reargument

Ratings:

4.5

(2)
|Views: 978|Likes:
Published by Allison Hayward
A brief filed on behalf of several campaign finance scholars on the history of the federal corporate expenditure ban. The history adopted by the Supreme Court in many decisions is just wrong in major ways, and this means the Court hasn't carefully examined these laws as it should under the First Amendment.
A brief filed on behalf of several campaign finance scholars on the history of the federal corporate expenditure ban. The history adopted by the Supreme Court in many decisions is just wrong in major ways, and this means the Court hasn't carefully examined these laws as it should under the First Amendment.

More info:

Published by: Allison Hayward on Jul 31, 2009
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

07/30/2009

pdf

text

original

 
No.
 
08-205
W
ILSON
-E
PES
P
RINTING
C
O
.,
 
I
NC
.
 
 – 
 
(202)
 
789-0096
 
 – 
 
W
ASHINGTON
,
 
D.
 
C.
 
20002
 
I
N
T
HE
 
Supreme Court of the United States
 ———— 
 C
ITIZENS
U
NITED
,
 Appellant,
 v.F
EDERAL
E
LECTION
C
OMMISSION
,
 Appellee.
 
 ———— 
 
On Appeal fromthe United States District Courtfor the District of Columbia
 ———— 
 
BRIEF OF AMICUSCAMPAIGN FINANCE SCHOLARSIN SUPPORT OF APPELLANT,CITIZENS UNITED
 ———— 
 
P
ROFESSOR
 A
LLISON
R.
 
H
 AYWARD
 
Counsel of Record
G
EORGE
M
 ASON
U
NIVERSITY
S
CHOOL OF
L
 AW
 3301 Fairfax Dr. MS1G3 Arlington VA 22201(703) 993-8746
 
(i)TABLE OF CONTENTSPageTABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................ iiINTEREST OF THE
 AMICUS CURIAE
............ 1SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ............................. 3 ARGUMENT ........................................................ 4I. THE
 AUTO WORKERS
OPINION HAS ALLOWED THIS COURT AND LOWERCOURTS TO DEFER TO LEGISLA-TIVE JUDGMENTS WHEN CAM-PAIGN FINANCE LAWS DESERVESPECIAL SCRUTINY .............................. 5II. RESTRICTIONS ON CORPORATIONS AND UNIONS IN POLITICS HAVENOT BEEN THE PRODUCT OF CA-REFUL LEGISLATIVE JUDGMENT,BUT INSTEAD HAVE BEEN A WEA-PON DEPLOYED AGAINST POLITI-CAL RIVALS ............................................. 6 A. The Roots of Corporate CampaignFinance Restrictions ............................ 7B. Extending Campaign Finance Re-strictions to Labor Unions................... 10C. Congress Bans Corporate and LaborExpenditures ....................................... 12III. WHY DID THE COURT ADOPT THIS VERSION OF HISTORY? ........................ 16CONCLUSION .................................................... 18
 
iiTABLE OF AUTHORITIESCASES Page
 Austin v. Mich. Chamber of Commerce
,
 
494 U.S. 652 (1990) ............................ 4, 6, 10, 18
 FEC v. Beaumont
, 537 U.S. 146 (2003) ....... 5, 6
 FEC v. Colo. Republican Fed. CampaignComm.
, 533 U.S. 431 (2001) ..................... 5
 FEC v. Mass. Citizens for Life, Inc.
, 479U.S. 238 (1986) .......................................... 10, 18
  FEC v. Nat’l Right to Work Comm.
, 459U.S. 197 (1982) .......................................... 6
 McConnell v. FEC
, 540 U.S. 93 (2003) ........ 4, 5
 Nixon v. Shrink Miss. Gov’t PAC
, 528 U.S.377 (2000) .................................................. 5
United States v. CIO
, 335 U.S. 106 (1948) .. 14-15
United States v. CIO
, 77 F. Supp. 355(D.D.C. 1948) ............................................. 14
United States v. Const. & Gen. Lab. Union No. 264
, 101 F. Supp 869 (W.D. Mo.1951) .......................................................... 14
United States v. Int’l Union United Auto., Aircraft, and Agric. Implement Workersof Am.
, 352 U.S. 567 (1957) .....................
 passim
 
United States v. Painters Local Union No. 481
, 172 F.2d 854 (2d Cir. 1949),
rev’g
79F. Supp 516 (1948) .................................... 15
United States v. UAW-CIO
, 138 F. Supp.53 (E.D. Mich. 1956) ................................. 16STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVEMATERIALS
 Federal Election Act of 1955: Hearing on S.636 Before the S. Comm. on Rules and Admin.
, 84th Cong. 201 (1955) ................. 1589 Cong. Rec. 5328 (1943) ............................ 11

Activity (2)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->