Washington’s crippling winter weather did not keep Congressional Democrats from introducing new legislation yesterday in response to the Court’s recent campaign-finance ruling, and much of today’s news coverage focuses on the proceedings. The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, USA Today, CNN, and Politico all report on the new bill, which was introduced by Senator Charles Schumer and Representative Chris Van Hollen to mitigate the effects of Citizens United v. FEC; the proposed legislation would prohibit corporations that are government contractors, the recipients of bank bailouts, or more than twenty percent foreign-owned from participating in U.S. elections. The bill would also increase disclosure requirements for domestic corporations involved in campaign spending and place substantial restrictions on foreign corporate participation in U.S. elections.
Several news outlets analyze the post-Citizens legislation in greater detail today. At The Atlantic, Marc Ambider opines that any measures aimed at reforming campaign finance in response to Citizens will either do little more than “shame†corporations or restrict the political influence of labor unions, traditionally allies of the Democrats spearheading the new legislation.  Ashby Jones of the WSJ Law Blog agrees that Congress’s campaign-finance-reform options are now limited, but he points out that the proposed bill could “give the traditional players in politics – politicians and parties – an advantage over corporations and labor unions.â€Â And, in response to comments made by Ted Olson, who argued the case on behalf of Citizens United, following the decision, Jesse Strauss has a piece in the Huffington Post in which he discusses whether shareholders can realistically use corporate democracy to keep corporate campaign spending in check.
At Reason.com, Brian Doherty discusses the Court’s recent decision to grant the NRA’s motion for divided argument in McDonald v. Chicago. He speculates that by granting the motion, the Court has suggested that it might be inclined to adopt a more limited ruling based on the incorporation of the Second Amendment against the states through the Due Process Clause, rather than the petitioners’ broader argument, which also relies on the Privileges or Immunities Clause.
The Washington Post reports that this morning, the Court asked both parties in Kiyemba v. Obama to address whether the case should be dismissed in light of a new agreement which will allow two Uighurs held at Guantanamo Bay to be resettled in Switzerland. Coverage of the Court’s request is also available at the BLT, which reports that the parties must file letter briefs on the issue by February 19. At the Opinionator Blog of the New York Times, Linda Greenhouse examines the recent deal as well. By arranging for the men to be transferred out of U.S. custody, Greenhouse writes, the Obama Administration will now “almost certainly†be able to avoid defending their detention in oral arguments before the Supreme Court next month. .
Finally, Above the Law has released its latest predictions for four pending cases, Quon, Christian Legal Society, McDonald, and Comstock, based on the outcome of Citizens United. (ATL links to the actual predictions, which are posted at The 10th Justice.)
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY