Supreme Court Upholds 'Soft Money' Limits
FOXNews is running this Breaking News headline: "Supreme Court Upholds 'Soft Money' Limits." For details on this case (McConnell v. FEC) check here.
UPDATE: The CNN story has better details. Calling the court "sharply divided", it says Justices Stevens, O'Connor, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer formed the majority to uphold the soft money ban and the pre-election ad restrictions. Very interesting! I'll be back with more once I've read the opinions.
UPDATE II: Ok, scratch that. There is no way I'm reading the majority opinion. It is 119 pages long and I'm in the middle of finals (the ruling as a whole is 300 pages). If you want to read them yourselves, you can find it here, and I'm sure we can expect excellent coverage from Rick Hasen. A cursory review of court-watcher expectations suggests that, once again, O'Connor proved to be the decisive vote (and once again helped write the decision).
UPDATE III: Am I the only one that feels like this is pretty anti-climactic? I mean, back when people thought McCain-Feingold would actually help reduce the flow of money to campaigns (did anyone believe that?), this case seemed like it would be a big deal. It would be the lynchpin that might either restrict or unleash the flow of a lot of money. But as we've seen, the new law simply channelled the money into new "unaffiliated" groups (Soros et al) and increased the ability to raise hard money. So while this case could certainly prove important for our understanding of campaign spending limits and the First Amendment, I think it had become less important and urgent in terms of the current election cycle (which is why it had been fastracked to SCOTUS). Anyhow, I'm sure it'll provide interesting classroom fodder for Lillian BeVier when she teaches me Speech and Press next semester.