She's going root-and-branch here by targeting Buckley.
In Buckley, SCOTUS essentially held money is speech in political contexts, but upheld limits on campaign contributions while striking down limits on independent spending.
On each, the votes were 7-1.
CJ Burger woulda struck down both limits, Justice White woulda upheld both.
On each, the votes were 7-1.
CJ Burger woulda struck down both limits, Justice White woulda upheld both.
Warren's call for a constitutional amendment to reverse Buckley would vindicate White's view that "money is not always equivalent to or used for speech, even in the context of political campaigns." scholar.google.com/scholar_case?c… 
Meanwhile, the Roberts Court has been taking steps towards vindicating Burger's view that "people—candidates and contributors—spend money on political activity because they wish to communicate ideas, and their constitutional interest in doing so is precisely the same."
Justice Thomas is already there, and has been for a while: supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf…
Whether Roberts will go for outright overruling or through subterfuge is a different question - one that @rickhasen has been following over the years: slate.com/news-and-polit…)
@rickhasen Warren is running a race against the Supreme Court to overrule Buckley, but they're sprinting in different directions.
@rickhasen Justice John Paul Stevens, the lead dissenter in Citizens United, joined SCOTUS while the justices were deliberating over Buckley. He didn't get a vote, but in 2014, he told the Senate he'd have sided with White:
@rickhasen Stevens's 2014 Senate testimony coincided with the release of his book, Six Amendments. One of his proposed Amendments was designed to vindicate White's dissent in Buckley and his own in Citizens United, and overrule both decisions.
@rickhasen "Neither the First Amendment nor any provision of this Constitution shall be construed to prohibit the Congress or any state from imposing reasonable limits on the amount of money that candidates for public office, or their supporters, may spend in election campaigns."
@rickhasen Stevens believed SCOTUS wouldn't read "reasonable limits" out of his proposed amendment, should it be ratified.
I imagine Warren wouldn't be so optimistic about the current court. Has she said what language she'd propose/support to prevent judicial subterfuge?
I imagine Warren wouldn't be so optimistic about the current court. Has she said what language she'd propose/support to prevent judicial subterfuge?
@rickhasen This is true but at least it has the procedural virtue of going over SCOTUS's head rather than all the other plans that would run right into its buzzsaw.
@rickhasen And either way, I'm still waiting for the candidates not named Mayor Pete to answer
@rickhasen Because Warren has her share of plans that would go straight into the SCOTUS buzzsaw
