PrawfsBlawg posts on the recurring angst by some over Citizens United.

My own theory about the internal dynamics at work considers the history of individual justices, namely Justice Kennedy. Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, the case Citizens United
overturned, was decided in 1990, during Justice Kennedy’s first full
term on the Court, and Kennedy wrote the principal dissent (joined by
O’Connor and Scalia). He likely had been itching to overturn that case
since 1990 and the change of personnel and passage of time gave him the
votes (save the Chief, at the outset) to finally do it.

…Why is so much ire aimed directly and uniquely at Citizens United,
out of the entire body of campaign finance law? Why is this case
perceived as the alpha and omega of bad law on the subject? Yes, Citizens United overturned Austin. But Austin was 20 years at this point, so it was hardly Justice Brandeis in Erie overturning Swift. And Austin
itself was arguably the First Amendment anomaly–the one and (at that
point) only time the Court had accepted the equality rationale for
regulating campaign spending (although it was equality in the guise of
corruption). Austin could not be reconciled with Bellotti v. Bank of Boston in 1980, which invalidated a ban on corporate expenditures in an issue election, or, more fundamentally, with Buckley v. Valeo in 1976. So why pick on Citizens rather than these earlier precedents, especially Buckley, which is the case that introduced the fundamental idea that expending money for expression is First-Amendment protected?

PrawfsBlawg posts on the recurring angst by some over Citizens United.

My own theory about the internal dynamics at work considers the history of individual justices, namely Justice Kennedy. Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, the case Citizens United
overturned, was decided in 1990, during Justice Kennedy’s first full
term on the Court, and Kennedy wrote the principal dissent (joined by
O’Connor and Scalia). He likely had been itching to overturn that case
since 1990 and the change of personnel and passage of time gave him the
votes (save the Chief, at the outset) to finally do it.

…Why is so much ire aimed directly and uniquely at Citizens United,
out of the entire body of campaign finance law? Why is this case
perceived as the alpha and omega of bad law on the subject? Yes, Citizens United overturned Austin. But Austin was 20 years at this point, so it was hardly Justice Brandeis in Erie overturning Swift. And Austin
itself was arguably the First Amendment anomaly–the one and (at that
point) only time the Court had accepted the equality rationale for
regulating campaign spending (although it was equality in the guise of
corruption). Austin could not be reconciled with Bellotti v. Bank of Boston in 1980, which invalidated a ban on corporate expenditures in an issue election, or, more fundamentally, with Buckley v. Valeo in 1976. So why pick on Citizens rather than these earlier precedents, especially Buckley, which is the case that introduced the fundamental idea that expending money for expression is First-Amendment protected?