updated Wed. March 13, 2024
-
The Badger Herald
February 27, 2018
The rise of dark money in politics accelerated through two Supreme Court rulings: Wisconsin Right to Life v. FEC in 2007 and Citizens United in 2010. These decisions allowed corporations and nonprofits to spend money on issue ads during elections and then to spend money on ads that expressly calledÃâà...
Center for Responsive Politics
January 25, 2018
A combination of unclear rules and lax oversight from both the IRS and the FEC has made it easy for nominally apolitical groups like AFF to become vehicles for secret political money, allowing wealthy corporate and individual donors to spend in elections without any public fingerprints. Nearly 90 percent ofÃâà...
PolitiFact
January 17, 2018
The Huffington Post article was based on data collected by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, which is based on reports made to the Federal Election Commission. So, we went to the center's website to produce this breakdown on how much conservative groups have reported spending so farÃâà...
Minnesota Lawyer
November 15, 2017
The 4th Circuit in North Carolina Right to Life v. Bartlett came down in 1999, and the 7th Circuit's decision in Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. v. Barland in 2014, following Citizen's United v. FEC from 2010. The decision also conflicts with the Supreme Court's jurisprudence, including its 1987 opinion in Bd. ofÃâà...
Vox
November 15, 2017
Over the past decade, starting with a 2007 case, Wisconsin Right to Life v. FEC, and most prominently including Citizens United, the Roberts Court has been at war with these prophylactic laws — concluding that they are over-inclusive and that they chill free speech. In Wisconsin Right to Life, the SupremeÃâà...
PRI
November 15, 2017
The Supreme Court's ruling in Wisconsin Right to Life v. FEC in 2007 further eroded the McCain-Feingold law by allowing certain nonprofit groups to air political issue ads within 30 days of a primary election and 60 days of a general election. Wisconsin Right to Life Inc., a nonprofit advocacy group, wantedÃâà...
Center for Responsive Politics
October 6, 2017
Federal Election Commission (FEC) to allow corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money independently in support of or in opposition to a candidate. .... In FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, the Court deemed BCRA's prohibition on corporate electioneering communications as unconstitutional.
Center For American Progress
July 18, 2017
But inaction and obstruction at the Federal Election Commission (FEC) has made it close to impossible to detect or penalize such misconduct. The law needs to be updated to respond to current threats and realities. Under the current system of campaign finance disclosure, voters often don't know whereÃâà...
Center for Responsive Politics
February 23, 2017
In addition to submitting her resignation from the Federal Election Commission this week, Ann Ravel is leaving behind some scathing last words in a report condemning the “dysfunction and deadlock” of the agency she chaired. “While the FEC's employees strive to fulfill its mission, the CommissionÃâà...
Village Voice
January 15, 2017
FEC and FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, which Paul describes as a “precursor” to Citizens United. (The Wisconsin decision likewise dealt with corporate campaign spending, loosening rules on when it can be prohibited; Citizens United essentially obliterated them.) Taken together, the cases Bopp devisedÃâà...
