As with all U.S. S.C. cases it comes down to Justice Kennedy.

"All" may be a bit strong, and we don't know what Justice Sotomayor thinks about this, do we?

I agree with the Voters in Oregon

"All" may be a bit strong.

Here's and interesting SCOTUS case that didn't fall into the usual voting patterns - maybe one-of-a-kind.

Given the High Court's warm, fuzzy feelings about corporate money controlling the electoral process, it may well strike down "clean money."

What an even-handed characterization of Citizens United.

Nevertheless, I'll bet you they don't strike the Arizona law. I doubt the publicly-approved "thumb on the scales" argument will be equated with infringing speech of the evil "corporate" candidates.

In Oregon we would not, or at least should not, ever have to reach any constitutional issues, state or federal.

ORS 260.432 provides for the following required notice in public offices:

ATTENTION ALL PUBLIC EMPLOYEES:

The restrictions imposed by the law of the State of Oregon on your political activities are that "No public employee shall solicit any money, influence, service or other thing of value or otherwise promote or oppose any political committee or promote or oppose the nomination or election of a candidate, the gathering of signatures on an initiative, referendum or recall petition, the adoption of a measure or the recall of a public office holder while on the job during working hours. However, this section does not restrict the right of a public employee to express personal political views."

It is therefore the policy of the state and of your public employer that you may engage in political activity except to the extent prohibited by state law when on the job during working hours.

The Portland City Attorney's office has even had it posted in their office, but elected to ignore it. You see, the city itself, not being a person per se, must implicitly be exempt AND have the power to offer an implicit blanket exemption/immunity to all city staff to boldly violate state statutes.

Money that the city gave to any "political committee" dedicated to the election of any candidate should be treated as taxable income for that candidate. City employees receive income that is dedicated to health care, for example, for which the federal tax law specifically exempts from income taxes. I do not know of any federal income tax exemption for monies delivered to person X, if the delivery is conditioned by contractual requirement that it be automatically redirected to that person's electoral "political committee" for an election to a public office.

Maybe we could try to fund, with tax dollars, the elections (of favored candidates) to the board of the Oregon Education Association or to the Board of Directors of NIKE, Inc. I cannot see a state statute that even remotely seems to constrain the city's freedom to do that, other than the prohibition on giving out gifts to anybody, even if they are a candidate for public office or not. It too should be treated as income -- to serve some quasi-PR role, even if the message is the goodness of giving out tax dollars as gifts.

Jack

Sontamayor dissented from Citizens United.

I wonder if Justice Kagan who replaced Stevens, the dissenter in Citizens, will recuse herself. Given that she was solicitor general when the case was argued before the high court.

What about union money?

Given that she was solicitor general when the case was argued before the high court.

Yes, that's why I say Sotomayor might be the wild card. Could be a 4-4 disaster area.

Scalia is certainly a different kind of bird. I am just hoping that somehow everything works itself out with this Supreme Court... could be a wild one.