Connect with us

Politics

A Look Inside the Case That Enshrined Political Power for Billionaires

Published

on

A Look Inside the Case That Enshrined Political Power for Billionaires

The justices’ views did not track along simple ideological lines. Justice Byron White, a Kennedy appointee, felt that limiting spending was critical; otherwise, “you can get and spend all the money you want,” according to notes kept by Justice William J. Brennan Jr.

But five other justices were First Amendment hard-liners, from William Rehnquist, a conservative future chief justice, to Harry Blackmun, a liberal stalwart. Mr. Brennan and Thurgood Marshall, both liberals, contemplated supporting Justice White, and Congress, in curbing spending. But the archives show that both feared giving the government the ability to silence groups like the NAACP, where Justice Marshall, the first Black justice, had served as lead counsel.

“On the one hand, there’s this huge concern about corruption in government,” said Rick Hasen, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles. “On the other hand, there are these very powerful First Amendment arguments that had not ever been really considered by the court.”

Even as the justices were deliberating, the Libertarian Party was exploring whether the Kochs could test the new campaign finance limits by donating $25,000 to the party itself, rather than to a specific candidate. Mr. Bolton, who also did legal work for the Libertarian Party, helped devise a plan to put a $25,000 contribution from the Kochs in escrow while they awaited word on whether it would be legal, a gambit ultimately rejected by Charles Koch.

On Jan. 30, 1976, the court handed down its decision, a 6-to-2 ruling that upheld the law’s limits on contributions to political campaigns, its disclosure requirements and the new program for public financing of campaigns. But the justices ruled 7 to 1 against limits on how much people could spend on their own campaigns, or on independent expenditures on behalf of other politicians they hoped to see elected.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Politics

Video: Why Were These C.E.O.s in Beijing With Trump?

Published

on

Video: Why Were These C.E.O.s in Beijing With Trump?

new video loaded: Why Were These C.E.O.s in Beijing With Trump?

Some of America’s most powerful C.E.O.s accompanied President Trump to Beijing during his summit with President Xi Jinping of China. Our reporter Ana Swanson explains what they were hoping to gain from the trip.

By Ana Swanson, Nour Idriss, Nikolay Nikolov and James Surdam

May 15, 2026

Continue Reading

Politics

Senator John Kennedy introduces America to ‘Margaret,’ his elliptical trainer named after Thatcher

Published

on

Senator John Kennedy introduces America to ‘Margaret,’ his elliptical trainer named after Thatcher

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Margaret Thatcher once ran Britain. John Kennedy’s “Margaret” mostly runs him into the ground.

Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., is going viral after posting a tongue-in-cheek workout video introducing followers to “Margaret” — his elliptical trainer named after former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher — while wearing a red bandanna and speaking directly to the camera from his Louisiana carport.

“Hey X, I have somebody I’d like you to meet,” Kennedy says at the start of the minute-long video posted to social media Friday.

“This is Margaret. Margaret is my elliptical trainer. I named Margaret after Margaret Thatcher because both kick butt and take names.”

Advertisement

ERIC SWALWELL’S ‘CRINGE’ WORKOUT VIDEO MOCKED FOR BENCHING LIGHT WEIGHT

Senator John Kennedy, R-La., posted the video showing his unconventional at-home workout routine with elliptical “Margaret” to social media channels Friday. (@SenJohnKennedy via X)

Kennedy goes on to explain that “Margaret” lives outside under the carport for three reasons: the machine is too heavy to move, his wife “won’t let” him bring it inside and because he enjoys getting in a workout during Louisiana summers.

The Senator said he enjoys working outside during Louisiana summers, a detail that drew disbelief from many viewers familiar with the state’s famously brutal heat and humidity.

“As you can see, Margaret, my elliptical trainer, is out here under my carport in Louisiana,” Kennedy says. “After Margaret kicks my butt, I look for air conditioning.”

Advertisement

The surreal, self-aware clip quickly drew thousands of reactions online, with users roasting Kennedy’s bandanna look while also praising the senator’s everyman personality.

SEN KENNEDY PRAISES FETTERMAN AS A ‘TOTAL BANGER,’ WHO ‘DOESN’T GIVE A DAMN’ ABOUT ANGERING LIBERALS

Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., talks to reporters in the basement of the U.S. Capitol on July 31, 2025, as Senate lawmakers work to finish legislative business before the August recess. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

“You are rocking the dadgum crap outta that bandana,” one user wrote. “I thought you were representing the Bloods for a minute. Tell Margaret I think she’s cute but evil.”

Others praised Kennedy’s personality and down-home delivery style.

Advertisement

“You are a gem to us normal folk Mr. Kennedy. Live long and prosper!” one supporter posted.

“Senator Kennedy is that kind of Southerner that makes you feel you’re sitting on the front porch having some bit of common sense enlighten you in that poetic Southern way,” another wrote.

The Louisiana Republican has long cultivated a folksy, humorous public image that often breaks through online with colorful one-liners and unconventional social media moments.

Sen. John Kennedy speaks before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington on March 21, 2022. (J. Scott Applewhite/Reuters)

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Advertisement

Kennedy ended the video with a line that only added to the internet’s fascination.

“My work here is done,” he said. “And I can see myself out.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Supreme Court turns away Virginia Democrats seeking to reinstate new voting map

Published

on

Supreme Court turns away Virginia Democrats seeking to reinstate new voting map

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday turned down an appeal from Virginia Democrats whose new voter-approved state election map was canceled by the state’s Supreme Court.

The justices made no comment, and the legal outcome came as no surprise.

The U.S. Supreme Court has no authority to review or reverse rulings by state judges interpreting their state’s constitution — unless the decision turned on federal law or the U.S. Constitution.

But the Virginia ruling came as a political shock, particularly after 3 million voters had cast ballots and narrowly approved a new election map that would favor Democrats in 10 of its 11 congressional districts.

That would have represented an increase of four seats for Democrats in the House of Representatives.

Advertisement

Even worse for Democrats, the court setback in Virginia came a week after the Supreme Court’s ruling in a Louisiana case had bolstered Republicans.

In a 6-3 decision, the justices reinterpreted the Voting Rights Act and freed Republican-controlled states in the South to dismantle districts that were drawn to favor Black Democrats.

In the two weeks since then, the GOP has flipped seven districts in Tennessee, Alabama, Louisiana and Florida.

The Virginia Supreme Court decision pointed to a procedural flaw that turned on the definition of an “election.”

To amend the state Constitution, Virginia lawmakers must adopt the proposal twice — once before a “general election” and a second time after the election. It is then submitted to the voters.

Advertisement

Last fall, Democrats proposed to amend the state Constitution to permit a mid-decade redistricting.

However, by a 4-3 vote, the state justices said the General Assembly flubbed the first approval because it took place on Oct. 31 of last year, just five days before the election.

By then, they said, about 40% of the voters had cast early ballots.

In defense of the Legislature, the state’s attorneys said the proposed amendment was approved before election day, which complies with the state Constitution.

But the majority explained “the noun ‘election’ must be distinguished from the noun phrase ‘election day.’ ”

Advertisement

It reasoned that because early voters had already cast ballots before the constitutional amendment was first adopted, the proposal was not approved before the election.

The dissenters said the election took place on “election day” and the proposal had been adopted before that time.

The state’s lawyers adopted that view in their appeal and argued that under federal law, the election takes place on election day.

But the Supreme Court turned away the appeal with no comment.

The result is that a state amendment that won approval twice before both houses of the Legislature and in a statewide vote was judged to have failed.

Advertisement

The state says it will use the current map, which had elected Democrats to the House in six districts and Republicans in five.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending