My Take on SCOTUS Ruling

[muon2]

Antonio, if you are looking for the constitutional comparison, Citizens United is not a good choice. I think that CU followed fairly logically from Buckley v Valeo (1976), and that should be the focal point of concern for those concerned about campaign spending. In Buckley SCOTUS held that individual expenditures could not be limited since money was required to exercise free speech. Buckley also identified the importance of political association as well as political expression. If political association is as important then a group of smaller donors should be able to band together to compete against a wealthy individual. CU just identifies that associations acting through a corporation are such an entity. The concern should be whether the Buckley holding that essentially money equals free speech is appropriate.

[muon2]

I don't find judicial activism when SCOTUS takes a precedent setting case to its logical conclusion. There's no question that CU opened the door to more money in elections, but that decision in and of itself doesn't constitute activism. The activism was in the original precedent (Buckley) to the extent that it equated promoting a particular candidate for election with promoting a political idea.

[muon2]

I don't find judicial activism when SCOTUS takes a precedent setting case to its logical conclusion. There's no question that CU opened the door to more money in elections, but that decision in and of itself doesn't constitute activism. The activism was in the original precedent (Buckley) to the extent that it equated promoting a particular candidate for election with promoting a political idea.

I'm not someone that likes to throw around the "judicial activism" label, as I think both sides can claim that in many cases depending on their particular perspective. I think what makes Citizens United particularly notably is that SCOTUS decided on its own to move the case from a simple statutory issue to a constitutional one that has had profound ramifications.

The Buckley ruling on self-expenditures by wealthy individuals was certainly a constitutional and not a statutory ruling. Since CU flowed from Buckley, how does one interpret it as a statutory to constitutional shift?