corporate election spending

See the following -

Citizens United

Editorial | New York Times | June 25, 2012

The Supreme Court examined the Arizona immigration law in minute detail, but when it came to revisiting the damage caused by its own handiwork in the 2010 Citizens United case, it couldn’t be bothered. In a single dismissive paragraph on Monday, the court’s conservative majority refused to allow Montana or any other state to impose limits on corporate election spending and wouldn’t even entertain arguments on the subject. Read More »

Editorial: Campaign-finance Future Haunted by Montana's Past

Editorial | USA Today | June 26, 2012

Money spent anonymously to influence elections is almost by definition corrupting. If the public cannot make the connection between lawmakers' actions and the monied interests backing them, the temptation for almost extortion-like pressure is sure to follow.That prospect is very troubling. The future, it seems, might not be so far removed from Montana's past. Read More »

The Supreme Court’s Cowardice

Editorial | Bloomberg | June 26, 2012

In summarily dismissing a Montana case in which the state’s high court had upheld an anti- corruption statute regulating corporate spending on elections, the U.S. Supreme Court this week opted to see no evil, hear no evil and speak no truth. Read More »

Transparency Antidote to Dark Money This Election

Editorial | PatriotLedger.com | March 17, 2012

This Sunshine Week, as the nation commemorates the importance of open government and freedom of information, the Sunlight Foundation is leading a campaign to engage voters to call on their lawmakers and the Obama administration to address the disastrous effects of the game-changing rulings by the Supreme Court in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and a federal district court in SpeechNow.org v. FEC. Read More »

Who's Footing the Bills?

Staff Writer | Baker City Herald | June 22, 2012

In the 2fi years since Citizens United, it’s become clear that creative accounting can in some cases obscure from voters’ eyes the dollars behind the messages that bombard us with each election cycle. (And you can imagine the barrage which awaits us as Nov. 6 nears.)

Read More »