Tag Archives: Bancroft PLLC

~ politics petitions pollution and pop culture

SCOTUS …. still at work


Supreme_Court_US_2009

This week at the Court

By on Oct 6, 2013 at 12:03 am

Monday is the first day of the 2013 Term. We expect orders – primarily cert.  denials from the September 30 Conference – at 9:30 a.m.

The Justices will hear two oral arguments each day, Monday through Wednesday.

The hearing list for the October sitting is here.

On Friday the Justices will meet for their October 11 Conference.

Our list of “Petitions to watch” for that Conference will be available soon.

Argument preview: Campaign finance — again

****************************************************************************

By on Oct 5, 2013 at 12:11 am

At 10 a.m. Tuesday, the Supreme Court will hold one hour of oral argument on the latest constitutional dispute over campaign finance — this time, the constitutionality of federal ceilings on donations to political candidates or parties.  In the case of McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, arguing for Alabama Republican donor Shaun McCutcheon and the Republican National Committee will be Erin E. Murphy of the Washington law firm of Bancroft PLLC, with twenty minutes of time.  Arguing for Republican Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky — in the case as an amicus — will be Bobby R. Burchfield of the Washington law firm of McDermott Will & Emery, with ten minutes.  Representing the FEC, with thirty minutes, will be U.S. Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli, Jr.

It has been nearly four years since the Supreme Court set off a constitutional revolution in the financing of federal elections, in Citizens United v. FEC, and the controversy it stirred up still has not lost its fury.  The Court, however, is ready to consider extending that revolution by, perhaps, casting aside a constitutional formula it has used repeatedly in this field for more than four decades to curb campaign donations.

The formula, put simply, is that those who contribute money to candidates or political committees get less protection for their activity than those who spend money directly to try to influence election outcomes.   The Court is being asked to give donors the same full protection that spenders get under the First Amendment.  In short, the Justices have a chance to reexamine the core of the landmark 1976 ruling in Buckley v. Valeo.

Continue reading »