1 Comment

  1. VictorMTA VictorMTA

    Professor Stone replied via email: “I believe the call for a constitutional amendment can serve a positive role in drawing continuing attention to this issue and in mobilizing opposition to the
    Court’s position. Given the difficulty of amending the Constitution, however, I am very skeptical that such an amendment could be enacted, particularly because a small minority of states, controlled by Republican legislators, can block its passage. On the other hand, I am much more optimistic about a change in the Court’s doctrine. Of course, this will require a change in the make-up of the
    Court by at least one justice, and whether and when that happens depends on both retirements and presidential elections. But it is quite possible that by 2020 this could happen. The stare decisis concern is not as troubling as you think.

    In Citizens United, the conservative justices overruled a recent precedent in the McConnell case, therefore opening the door to similar reversals in the future. More important, justices could easily argue, not that money is not speech, but that the corrosive impact of money on our democracy has grown worse over time, to the point where the interest in restricting expenditures is now compelling. That would justify an overruling, not on the ground that the legal
    principles are being overturned, but on the ground that the circumstances have changed.

    In any event, I think we need to pursue both avenues, although in the end I think judicial decisionmaking is a safer and more likely remedy than constitutional amendment.”

    Feel free to post this, if you like.

Comments are closed.