- Primary lessons: Tea party ebbs; money flows - Salt Lake Tribune Editorial
It is no surprise that Orrin Hatch won the Republican Party’s nomination for a seventh term in the U.S. Senate. If you can’t win a primary election with 36 years of seniority and a $10 million war chest behind you, there’s something seriously amiss. In Hatch’s case, there was nothing amiss. Hatch has been a conservative stalwart his entire career and closely attuned to the views of his Utah constituents. The only ones who appeared to believe otherwise were his opponent, Dan Liljenquist, and the tea party. ...
- Ballot boo-boo and other notes - Provo Daily Herald Editorial
- Corruption upheld: Court stands by Citizens United - Salt Lake Tribune Editorial
A past Supreme Court justice became famous for saying that he couldn’t define pornography. But he would know it when he saw it.
In only the last few months, voters across America — and those who voted, or were repulsed from voting, in yesterday’s Utah Republican primary — have seen a mushrooming of the "independent" expenditures allowed by the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United ruling. That’s the one that claimed that unlimited amounts of money spent by corporations and the 1 percent to influence elections, and to make candidates beholden to donors’ whims and desires, "do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption."
Yet, when the high court was handed an opportunity to revise that absurd conclusion, with the help of some very relevant historical research provided by the members of the Montana Supreme Court, the Citizens United majority — Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas and Chief Justice John Roberts — effectively clapped their hands over their ears and started singing "Polly Wolly Doodle" loudly enough that they couldn’t hear the plain truth of the situation. ...
- Supreme Court's campaign finance decision argues for scrutiny - [Portland] Oregonian Editorial
... While this is regrettable to many, it's useful to remember that exercising the First Amendment protections at the heart of the decision has consequences as well as benefits. Want to set up a super PAC that will pay for relentless attack advertising aimed at a candidate you don't like? Prepare for your pet candidate to be characterized as a puppet of your top contributors. The more money you raise, the more nastily you spend it, the greater the potential backlash. And that's entirely fair. ...
- Court leaves spigot open: States can’t exempt themselves from Citizens United - Eugene (Ore.) Register-Guard Editorial
In 1912 the citizens of Montana rose up against the copper kings who controlled their state government. They approved an initiative measure that barred corporations from making "a contribution or an expenditure in connection with a candidate or a political committee that supports or opposes a candidate or a political party." One hundred years later, the U.S. Supreme Court substituted its judgment for that of Montanans. The court will abide no limits on political speech by corporations or unions. ...
So far, I've seen more editorial reaction to the Montana case from Oregon than I have from Montana. If anybody has a relevant link, please tell me in the comment section below.
- The Supreme Court was not about to reconsider Citizens United - Michael McGough, The Los Angeles Times
- Free speech and political reality - Chicago Tribune Editorial
- Supreme Court Majority United - Wall Street Journal Editorial
Believe it or not, the Supreme Court means what it says about the First Amendment. That was the short but sweet message from the Justices on Monday as they affirmed that their 2010 campaign-finance decision in Citizens United is the law of the land—and that goes for states too. ...
- The Supreme Court’s Cowardice - Bloomberg Views
... It’s possible to argue that the First Amendment trumps all other concerns, and that Montana must simply shoulder the threat of corruption in order to give primacy to free speech. But it is not possible to credibly argue, as the Citizens United opinion does, that huge corporate expenditures to aid select political candidates do not give rise to corruption or its appearance. ...
|1.||Coach: Man shot at Utah courthouse once had promising future|
|2.||Turkish ‘street food with a twist’ takes a spin in Salt Lake City|
|3.||SLC makes list in bid for Democratic Convention|
|4.||Gang defendant shot, killed at new Salt Lake City federal courthouse|
|5.||Student leaders tell University of Utah president to change ‘Utah Man’ fight song|
|6.||Report: Shurtleff’s conduct ‘defies explanation’ in Jenson case|
|7.||Monson: Jim Boylen to kill — err, coach — the Jazz?|
|8.||Winds wreaking havoc in northern, western Utah|
|9.||BBB: Cancer fund spent only 8 percent of money on patients|
|10.||Scott D. Pierce: Cougars may be less fuzzy on BYUtv soon|