Cases pertaining to the Citizens United decision:
Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce
McConnell v. Federal Election Commission
Buckley v. Valeo
First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti
Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc.
“We should celebrate rather than condemn the
addition of this speech to the public debate.”
Justice Scalia, concurring, Citizens United
*
“Essentially, five Justices were unhappy with the limited nature of the case before us, so they changed the case to give themselves an opportunity to change the law.”
Justice Stevens, dissent
“Congress crafted BCRA in response to a
virtual mountain of research on the corruption that previ
ous legislation had failed to avert. The Court now negates
Congress’ efforts without a shred of evidence on how §203
or its state-law counterparts have been affecting any
entity other than Citizens United.” [Sounds like recent Shelby decision]
Justice Stevens, dissent
“The only thing preventing the majority from
affirming the District Court, or adopting a narrower
ground that would retain Austin, is its disdain for Austin.”
Justice Stevens, dissent
.i`` * ^ / . . . . . ` `~ 