My campaign-finance guru sends me an analysis of the decision from yesterday:
This decision is a pain. It is very BIG, literally. It tackles big issues. It is long. It is coming at a time when people really need settled rules in order to determine how to proceed. Sadly, in this regard, it is also very muddled, as far as I can tell. It contains few fact findings — and reasoning that is fragmented among three very different perspectives. Now, the Supreme Court, I suspect, is not in much better shape than if they’d just delivered the documents to it and said “Here.” But they didn’t. Instead they did apply the law to the record, and the result gives the reformers as well as the plaintiffs sort of half-a-loaf.
Specifics: the ability for party committees to continue to use nonfederal funds for party building, voter registration, get out the vote and voter ID helps alot. It permits parties to do what they are suppose to do, and doesn’t move this civic activity into the special interest realm (at least not completely).
The electioneering stuff seems like a big step back from the Buckley express advocacy rule, but I haven’t been able to get my computer to allow me to READ that part of the decision yet, so I don’t want to be real definitive on that question.
… the Rick Hasen election law blog has some decent analysis on the issues raised by this stupid messy opinion. …he’s electionlaw.blogspot.com.