A National Partnership Working for Fair and Impartial Courts
Contact Us Home July 22, 2018
"The improper appearance created by money in judicial elections is one of the most important issues facing our judicial system today."
Theodore B. Olson, former U.S. Solicitor General and attorney in Caperton v. Massey case

Citizen's United News

July 30, 2013
Sen. Jon Tester recently introduced a proposed federal constitutional amendment that would end corporate personhood rights, overturning the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision. The utility of such an amendment may be debated, since Citizens United was based on First Amendment free speech law, not referring to corporate personhood as a basis for the decision.
November 30, 2012

...The 2012 race shattered spending records as $27.8 million was spent on television advertising, according to Justice at Stake, and more than half of this money came in the form of independent spending. Read more at ThinkProgress

November 19, 2012

On this week's edition of Weekly Word, SFR staff writer Justin Horwath interviews lawyer James Bopp, who advised Citizens United leading up to its controversial victory in the Supreme Court that's changed the way of campaigning as we know it. We open with a discussion from Weekly Word hosts Joey Peters and Matthew Reichbach on what the new makeup of the state Senate could look like going into the next session.  Read more at the Santa Fe Reporter

November 16, 2012

The Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision has been rightly criticized for its legal incoherence, judicial activism and equation of corporations with individuals. However, it’s not responsible for two of the most outrageous aspects of the 2012 campaign: the super PACs that claimed to be independent despite their close association with candidates, and the hundreds of millions of dollars from secret donors that paid for an avalanche of negative campaign ads. Read more at the Washington Post

November 14, 2012

A resolution in support of a constitutional amendment to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in the Citizens United campaign finance case was passed today by a downsized San Diego City Council Rules Committee. Read more at Patch

November 13, 2012

A San Diego City Councilwoman is scheduled to ask her colleagues Wednesday to back a call for a federal constitutional amendment to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in the Citizen's United campaign finance case two years ago. Read more at KPBS

November 12, 2012

Last month, James Bopp, the legal mind behind the Citizens United case that gave rise to super-PACs and the dark-money boom, told me he didn't really believe Americans were all that upset with the increasing amounts of money spent on politics. Read more at Mother Jones

September 25, 2012

The state of Montana has worked particularly hard to ensure that its elected officials are accountable to the people, rather than special interests. It largely banned both corporate donations and also large contributions from individuals, in order to ensure that politicians are not too indebted to anyone, and judicial candidates are all nonpartisan. But Montana's system is being dismantled by the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United ruling, which opened the doors to corporate influence in the political system. Read more at the Huffington Post

September 21, 2012

Parroting the highest court, the Ninth Circuit found that “Montana’s ban on party endorsements of judicial candidates offends the First Amendment.” Evidently the absolutist view of free speech protection embraced in Citizens United has consequences beyond the money flooding into this year’s presidential election. Read more at the New York Times

September 18, 2012

...Carvin's lively testimony Sept. 12 before the Senate Judiciary Committee deserved an award for "the highest level of sarcasm we've heard before this committee in a long while," said Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.). However, the noted Republican attorney's testimony on the subject went mostly unchallenged by panel lawmakers and other panelists at the hearing. Read more at Fierce Government

September 13, 2012

We live in what will surely come to be called the Citizens United era, a period in which a runaway corporatist ideology has overtaken Supreme Court jurisprudence. No longer content just to pick a president, as five conservative Republicans on the Rehnquist Court did back in 2000, five conservative Republicans on the Roberts Court a decade later voted to tilt the nation’s entire political process toward the views of moneyed corporate power.  Read more at The Nation

June 13, 2012

The Supreme Court is scheduled to take up in conference on Thursday consideration of a Montana campaign finance case that could lead to revisiting Citizens United. For more, see Gavel Grab.

May 21, 2012

In a case that could lead to a reconsideration of  Citizens United, a brief filed Friday warned that Montana “may find its courts once again bought by corporate special interests,” if the state’s century-old ban on corporate election funding is overturned. The friend of the court brief was submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court by eight retired Montana justices and the nonpartisan Justice at Stake Campaign. 

February 21, 2012

Supreme Court Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer have suggested the court reconsider its landmark 2010 campaign finance ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. See Gavel Grab for more.

February 13, 2012

A New York Times editorial laments that campaign finance trends in the wake of the Citizens United ruling make "a mockery" of disclosure. See Gavel Grab for more. 

January 3, 2012

The Montana Supreme Court has restored a century-old ban on direct corporate campaign spending, citing a passage from Citizens United, which struck down corporate bans. See Gavel Grab.

September 27, 2011

On September 26, the Committee for Economic Development (CED) hosted a forum in Washington, D.C. to release three new policy reports on hidden money in federal, state, and judicial campaigns. The reports cap a year long effort by CED Trustees to offer a business leader response to the Supreme Court’s 2010 landmark Citizens United decision. Read more on Gavel Grab.

August 11, 2011

As Justice Stevens (ret.) observed in his dissent in Citizens United, the Roberts Court’s laissez-faire  approach to campaign finance regulation is premised on an exceedingly narrow (as Justice Stevens put it, “crabbed”) conception of the “corruption” interest that the Court has recognized previously: according to the Roberts Court, the only form of “corruption” that the Government has a legitimate interest in seeking to prevent through campaign finance regulation is quid pro quo corruption, i.e. the trading of cash for votes.

June 8, 2011

 A federal judge affirmed his ruling that struck down a federal ban on direct corporate contributions to federal candidates, and new legal fireworks over the issue are expected. Check out Gavel Grab for details.


June 3, 2011

U.S. prosecutors said a federal judge didn’t have enough information when he ruled that a century-old ban on direct corporate donations to federal candidates was unconstitutional and threw out part of an indictment against two fundraisers for Hillary Clinton’s campaigns.

June 3, 2011

A federal judge heard new arguments Friday over his ruling that voided a ban on corporate contributions to federal candidates. He plans a new ruling soon. See Gavel Grab for more.

June 1, 2011

Is U.S. District Judge James Cacheris having second thoughts over his recent ruling that struck down a federal ban on direct corporate contributions to federal candidates? Perhaps. For details, see Gavel Grab.





May 27, 2011

Drawing on the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, a federal judge in Virginia has ruled unconstitutional the U.S. law that prohibits corporations from making contributions to federal candidates. See Gavel Grab for more.

May 23, 2011

Courts across the country are continuing to deal with the fallout from the Supreme Court’s landmark Citizens United decision in 2010. Read details in Gavel Grab.

March 25, 2011

A year after the Supreme Court’s landmark decision easing campaign spending restrictions for corporations and interest groups, the Federal Election Commission has yet to issue regulations spelling out the full implications of the decision. The commission increasingly has been paralyzed by a sometimes bitter standoff between Republicans and Democrats on...



News Release Archives

The positions and policies of Justice at Stake publications and campaign partners are their own, and do not necessarily reflect those of other campaign partners or board members.
Website Design in Iowa by Global Reach