'Citizens United' Is Misunderstood

, New York Law Journal


The article by Jerry Goldfeder and Myrna Perez ("2013's Top Ten: From Voting Rights Act to Moreland Commission," Dec. 30), mischaracterizes the holding in the U.S. Supreme Court's Citizens United decision. They claim that the court in that case "ruled that corporations, unions and wealthy individuals could spend unlimited sums on behalf of or against a candidate, as long as it was independent of that candidate's campaign." And they claim that as a result, election campaigns were dominated by such independent contributions, most of it by wealthy individuals.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Continue to Lexis Advance®

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at customercare@alm.com

What's being said

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article #1202635455783

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.