Supreme Court Campaign Finance

WASHINGTON -- Progressive activists angered by the Supreme Court's 2010 ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission allowing corporations...

A company's political spending is relevant information to current and potential shareholders who are deciding where to invest their money.

Because the Constitution makes it so difficult to add an amendment to it, and because there is such a deep disagreement about the role that money is to play in American politics, the chances that an anti-Citizens United amendment will gain enough support to pass remain slim.

This is the final part of a five-part series by The Huffington Post about Stephen Colbert's ongoing exploration of the nation's campaign finance laws....

This is part four of a five-part series by The Huffington Post about Stephen Colbert's ongoing exploration of the nation's campaign finance laws. Read...

This is part three of a five-part series by The Huffington Post about Stephen Colbert's ongoing exploration of the nation's campaign finance laws. Rea...

This is part two of a five-part series by The Huffington Post about Stephen Colbert's ongoing exploration of the nation's campaign finance laws. Read ...

This is the first part of a five-part series by The Huffington Post about Stephen Colbert's ongoing explanation of the nation's campaign finance laws....

The rich use their money to legally bribe politicians to support policies that favor themselves over the middle class in the auction that we call elections. And the policies they support are different from those supported by the majority of middle class Americans voters.

In a symbolic, but significant boost to the movement, the Los Angeles City Council unanimously voted to make L.A. the first major city to endorse a constitutional amendment to overturn Supreme Court decisions that corporations are people and money is speech.

To understand why Dylan Ratigan's "Get Money Out" campaign is getting it right, let's take a quick look at the history of Supreme Court decisions on campaign finance.

At the 30th annual Carter Town Hall on Wednesday, former President Jimmy Carter told his audience he thought the Supreme Court decision to roll back r...

The Supreme Court today denied a request for the Court to review the decision by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Green Party v. Lenge that uphe...

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court imposed new limits Monday on states trying to restrain the influence of money in politics, striking down a law th...

Members of Congress report spending as much as a third of their time raising money for their reelection. This is time that they should be devoting to representing their constituents and running our country.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court won't hear a Republican-backed challenge of federal campaign finance restrictions. The court on Monday refused t...

One of the most striking examples of money in politics this year was the extent to which some lawmakers blatantly stated their fealty to big corporate interests, from apologizing to BP to offering to "serve the banks."

A Supreme Court decision this year dramatically altered the regulation of money in politics, and a recent vote by the Federal Election Commission coul...

Every American has the right to speak out, to express views, and to serve as an advocate for all manner of issues and prospective leaders. But having rights doesn't necessarily mean they're valuable, or even useful at all.

The Supreme Court is now considering whether to hear Arizona Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett, a First Amendment challenge to Arizona's unconstitutional "Clean Elections" system.

Primary elections are a pivotal point in our democratic process. Supporting a candidate early on can make a real impact, as money and momentum are harder to come by before winning the nomination.

The DISCLOSE Act is good start at addressing the expected upsurge in independent political spending to influence elections, but may fall far short of addressing the source of the problem: direct special interest funding.

In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the US Supreme Court has presented the United States with an astonishing future of unlimited spending on campaigns by corporations. We are facing the possibility of a true failed state.