wrote in message
...
On Jan 30, 5:59 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

"Perhaps the most important question that one might ask in the wake of
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is: are labor unions as
free
as corporations to spend as much as they wish -- independently of
candidates -- to influence elections to Congress and the White House? The
likely answer is: Probably, but check back later."


As I read the decision it struck down the limits on both Corporations
and Unions. Since the decision was made on a case involving a
corporation, corporations are mentioned more than Unions. But it
seems pretty clear to me that it affects both unions and
corporations. Excerpt from Wiki follows:
The decision is too long to post here.

Dan

The Court's decision struck down a provision of the McCain-Feingold
Act that banned for-profit and not-for-profit corporations and unions
from broadcasting “electioneering communications” in the 30 days
before a presidential primary and in the 60 days before the general
elections.[2] The decision completely overruled Austin v. Michigan
Chamber of Commerce (1990) and partially overruled McConnell v.
Federal Election Commission (2003).[4] The decision upheld the
requirements for disclaimer and disclosure by sponsors of
advertisements, and the ban on direct contributions from corporations
or unions to candidates, in part IV.[5]

You can read it any way you like, but, even though the Court treated the
case as a facial confrontation with the 1st Amendment, and it was a sweeping
decision, the actual decision was that the part of McCain-Feingold that
applies to corporations was overturned.

As the ScotusBlog entry says, it's likely that the courts will apply the
principle to unions, as well. But the decision did not overturn
McCain-Feingold; it only overturned the application of it to corporations.

This may seem like threading a needle but that's precisely what you have to
do with Supreme Court decisions. Don't make assumptions.

--
Ed Huntress