I am writing today to announce the closure of the New Mexico Independent. After three and a half years of operation in New Mexico, the board of the American Independent News Network, has decided to shift publication of its news…
While environmental activists played their part yesterday during demonstrations at the capitol building, going so far as to dress up as solar panels and to sing the tune of “You Are My Sunshine,” their counterparts, the anti-cap-and-trade contingency who has…
Roughly one quarter of University of New Mexico students are unimpressed with the state’s flagship public school, according to a survey that questioned college students about their higher education experiences.
On Wednesday, Sept. 9 the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case that could have a profound effect on campaign finance law, and today Common Cause, the government watchdog group, hosted a live Web chat on the subject.Here’s some background on the case from the Web chat:
The Supreme Court will hear a much anticipated case tomorrow (September 9) that has the potential to open the floodgates of corporate money into our political system. The court, in a special session, will consider whether to overturn well-established judicial precedents upholding restrictions on unlimited corporate and union spending expressly advocating the election or defeat of candidates.
The case is called Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. During the 2008 election, a conservative non-profit organization named Citizens United produced “Hillary: The Movie,” a documentary critical of then-Sen. Hillary Clinton. Because of the political nature of the movie and the fact that Citizens United intended to purchase airtime on a video on-demand service on cable television, the movie was deemed an “electioneering communication” by the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and was therefore subject to the rules governing the production of political ads, including limitations on who may fund them. Citizens United sued in federal court to overturn the decision, lost and appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court accepted the case, heard the arguments last session and was set to make a ruling on whether the FEC was correct to classify the movie as an “electioneering communication,” when it did something unexpected. Rather than ruling on the case, the court asked for a rehearing, but on a much broader question than the nature of this one political movie. The court now wants to consider overturning the restrictions on all corporate and union contributions to political campaigns. If the Court rules that limits on contribution from corporations and unions are unconstitutional, it could effectively reverse a series of
