Book-banning, freedom of speech, corporate contributions, public disclosure – the Citizens United v. FEC (Federal Election Commission) case currently before the US Supreme Court has all of this and more, including a surprise ending.

SCOTUS announced on Monday that it is taking what can only be described as extraordinary action that will potentially lead to a constitutional review of the McCain-Feingold Bi-partisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA). The Court, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, stated that a new round of oral arguments has been scheduled for September 9^th, thus expanding the of eventual ruling to possibly include whether the Act itself is constitutional.

Citizens United, led by long time conservative activist David Bossie, produced a documentary film during the 2008 Democratic primary season entitled “Hillary – The Movie.” Like Michael Moore’s “Fahrenheit 911” hitting the marketplace in 2004, the Citizens United movie was to be released on DVD, Pay-Per-View, and in certain theatres. Viewers were paying to view the documentary and it, like Fahrenheit 911, was portrayed by its creators as containing a message that did not explicitly advocate election or defeat of a political candidate, but certainly depicted their subject in a negative light.

The FEC contended the movie advocated the defeat of Hillary Clinton for President despite not using the “magic words” of “vote for or against.” The FEC claimed the movie and Citizens United should be brought under their jurisdiction; that disclosure reports would have to be filed, federal election law adhered to, and that contributors and/or investors’ identities and contribution or investment amounts must be made public. Citizens United argued their case based upon 1^st Amendment grounds and that their organization, like Moore’s as was stated in the FEC’s own previous ruling, qualified for the BCRA media exemption.

Controversy arose during oral arguments when Department of Justice deputy solicitor Malcolm Stewart, representing the FEC, answered questions posed by Justice David Souter. In responding to the Associate Justice’s queries, Stewart said that under BCRA, the US government, in the guise of the FEC, has the authority to even ban corporate or labor union funded books whose message, in the opinion of certain government speech regulators, does not conform to the parameters as outlined in the Act. These statements seemed to take the Court by surprise and could have contributed to the Justices wanting to take what appears to be a broader look at the law’s constitutionality.

The Court specifically wants the attorneys to provide briefs about previous rulings concerning limits on corporate and labor union spending as it relates to political campaigns. Should the Court decide to overturn large portions of McCain-Feingold, the previous system of unlimited spending through 527 organizations without disclosure could possibly be re-installed, thus freeing up individuals and organizations to more freely participate in the electoral process. What will not happen, based upon the scope of what the Court wants to consider, is a ruling that will allow the major national party organizations to again raise non-federal monies.

It is clear the Court’s unusual step in ordering a re-hearing and outlining the scope of the arguments it wants to hear might be an indication of a major ruling that will again fundamentally change the way political speech is funded and governed. The decision will likely come in the early part of next year, meaning any new changes will affect the 2010 elections.

What began as a rather narrow case affecting one political movie may have blossomed into a wide-ranging decision that will greatly alter the American political system.

The US Supreme Court’s ruling earlier this week on the Northwest Austin (TX) Utility District case helped set the ground rules for the 2011 redistricting process. This action, paired with the high court’s earlier decision in the Bartlett v. Strickland case (North Carolina) and the Census Bureau not including sampling in their 2010 data formula, means that the legal interpretations and precedents governing redistricting will be basically the same as they were in 2001.

There are wide variances of opinion, even within the two political parties themselves, as to how these parameters will affect their own individual future electoral prospects. To summarize all of the decisions -- most of which affect the drawing of minority districts -- protecting seats with the same percentage of minority voting age population on a hard count will stand, and the 17 states covered by the Voting Rights Act will still be required to obtain pre-clearance from the US Department of Justice.

For Republicans who want outright elimination of the Voting Rights Act, these rulings are bad news. For Republicans who understand that keeping the continuity of minority communities within a district at population percentages that have proven to elect minority candidates actually increases GOP strength in a greater number of outlying districts, these rulings are positive. For Democrats who want to break up minority districts and influence a greater number of seats with minority voters thus creating more Democratic districts, these parameters are negative. For classic civil rights oriented Democrats who work to protect and guarantee minority political representation, these rulings are positive.

With 12-14 seats switching states in 2010 apportionment, several places will become key redistricting players. For Republicans, three offensive states are Texas – slated to gain as many as four new seats and where the GOP has a strong chance to control the drawing pen – Georgia – gaining one seat and where Republicans have room to grow in the congressional delegation – and Tennessee – where the GOP has a chance to win the Governorship and both houses of the legislature and where the 5-4 Democratic congressional delegation does not reflect the state’s more Republican voting trends.

Democrats’ offensive states are California -- where their strong chances of winning the Governorship will give them total control of the pen and the ability to decrease the size of the 19-seat Republican contingent – Illinois – losing a seat, which will assuredly be a Republican-held district, and having the potential for further Democratic gains – and North Carolina – possibly gaining one seat, and a place where Democrats will control the pen if they hold both houses of the legislature.

Other critical states are: Florida, where Republicans must hold the Governorship to cement their gains of the last redistricting cycle; Arizona, gaining two seats and controlled by a commission that allows equal representation to minor party representatives; and South Carolina, apparently gaining one seat, but a state where aggressive Republicans could pick up an additional district if they are willing to draw Budget Chairman John Spratt an unfavorable seat.

Much wheeling and dealing will transpire in the period between the 2010 and 2012 elections. The action of this past week, however, virtually establishes the redistricting ground rules, which will be the basis for a definable map drawing process.

Mark Parkinson is the Democratic Governor of KansasWith budget crises dominating the news in almost every state, and term limits opening 19 of the 39* gubernatorial races to be decided in 2009-10, the Governors campaigns are becoming the hot electoral ticket.

Unlike in the US Senate, where minority Republicans have to defend just as many seats as the majority Democrats, the state house electoral count favors the GOP. Of the 39 races, 19 are open - in most cases because the incumbent can't legally succeed himself -- while another dozen races feature vulnerable incumbents, or at least somewhat so, according to various research data. Of the open seats, ten are currently in Democratic hands and nine are held by Republicans.

Already, eight seats are projected to change parties. Republicans are currently favored to secure the state houses in Kansas, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Wyoming because Democratic Govs. Mark Parkinson, Brad Henry, Phil Bredesen, and Dave Freudenthal, respectively, are either retiring or barred from seeking third terms. Conversely, Democrats are favored to win in four states where Republican incumbents can't or aren't seeking re-election: California, Hawaii, Minnesota, and Rhode Island (Govs. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Linda Lingle, Tim Pawlenty, and Don Carcieri, respectively).

An additional seven states are already in the toss-up column. Democratic incumbents Bill Ritter (CO), Jon Corzine (NJ), and Jim Doyle (WI) all have public surveys suggesting that they trail one or more Republican opponents. Democrats are also at risk in Michigan's open race (Gov. Jennifer Granholm term-limited), where four major Republican candidates are all polling strongly against Lt. Gov. John Cherry, the likely Democratic nominee. In Virginia, a very tight race is forecast for later this year between Democratic state Sen. Creigh Deeds and Republican former Attorney General Bob McDonnell. Republicans are also in toss-up situations in the open Florida race, almost assuredly featuring Attorney General Bill McCollum and state Chief Financial Officer Alex Sink in the 2010 general election, and in Nevada where Gov. Jim Gibbons (NV), in big scandal and martial trouble, finds himself in very difficult political shape but so far refuses to step aside.

Spirited campaigns are expected for Govs. Jan Brewer (R-AZ), Patrick Quinn (D-IL), and David Paterson (D-NY) all of whom ascended to their individual offices because the elected incumbent departed. Among the three, Paterson is in deep trouble even in his own Democratic primary. Former presidential candidate and Congressman John Kasich has already officially launched his campaign against Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland in what promises to be a highly competitive race. Alabama, Georgia, and Maine will feature tough open seat contests, while major Republican primary action is occurring in South Carolina and Texas. The two latter states should remain in the GOP column regardless of who becomes the respective Republican standard-bearer.

Currently, the partisan breakdown among the 50 Governors shows 28 Democrats and 22 Republicans. With state and federal redistricting set to dominate the 2011 legislative cycles, it is clear that the electoral stakes are very high in 2010. Right now, Republicans look to be favorably positioned to gain two to four seats, bringing them to parity with their Democratic counterparts and narrowing the number of places where they have no seat at the figurative map-drawing table.

Though the federal races usually command the preponderance of national attention, for real politicos, the Governor's races are the ones worth watching.



* Utah is added to the active Governor's election list because Gov. Jon Huntsman is resigning upon his confirmation as US Ambassador to China. The state will now have a special election in 2010 to fill the balance of the term, which ends in 2012.

Congressman Roy Blunt (R)Republican state Treasurer Sarah Steelman is again sending mixed signals about challenging Rep. Roy Blunt for Kit Bond’s open Senate seat next year. Earlier in the week Steelman was quoted as saying that she was considering running for Blunt’s open House seat instead of the Senate, because she “…would certainly prefer to do it without further destruction to our party.” The next day, Tuesday, Steelman quickly fired off a communication to her local television station saying that she is still "very seriously considering" the statewide campaign.

Steelman’s vacillation is the first public indication that she might be willing to avoid the intra-party challenge, something that didn’t appear possible even two weeks ago. Last week, former Ambassador Tom Schweich, who had previously launched his own Senatorial campaign and was bashing front runner Blunt abruptly reversed course and exited the race, and then endorsed the former House Republican Whip. Schweich had been heavily supported by former Sen. John Danforth, who now, too, decided to publicly endorse Blunt. The synergy behind the Springfield area Congressman has apparently caused Steelman to waver.

Sarah Steelman, currently a professor at Missouri State University, was elected state Treasurer in 2004 after winning two terms in the state Senate. She ran unsuccessfully for Governor in ’08, losing the Republican primary to then-Rep. Kenny Hulshof, who went onto to a landslide general election defeat at the hands of then-Attorney General Jay Nixon (D). For Steelman, as the sitting statewide official, to lose a primary battle against an opponent who represented only 1/9 of the state punctured some holes in what had been a strong political profile.

Mark Kirk (R) of Illinois Though the Illinois political picture has been fairly stable for the past month, Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL-10) continues to find himself in an advantageous position, nonetheless. The five-term Congressman is still actively weighing a statewide run, but he’s wisely sitting back and letting his somewhat beleaguered Democratic opponents make the first move.

Attorney General Lisa Madigan, a former state Senator and daughter of powerful state House Speaker Mike Madigan, is clearly the Democrats’ strongest statewide candidate, but she can only run for one office. Polling shows that she would easily defeat appointed Sen. Roland Burris in the Democratic primary as well as brushing aside all other potential contenders such as tainted state Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias. But, Madigan also fares well in the Governor’s race, the office she purportedly truly wants. Though new Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn’s favorability ratings are decent, Madigan beats him, at least according to early polling.

As we all know, scandal and turmoil have rocked Illinois since then-Senator Barack Obama resigned to assume the Presidency. With Democratic Gov. Rod Blagojevich being impeached for, among other things, trying to sell Obama’s Senate seat to the highest bidder, Quinn, then Lt. Governor, ascended to the state’s top office. The appointment controversy surrounding Burris, made just before the Governor was forcibly removed, has made his primary defeat a foregone conclusion, but it still places the party in a precarious position. Fending off scandal, impeachment, and what appear to be divisive primary battles, the Democrats find themselves in a potentially vulnerable position when matched against Rep. Kirk.

The Congressman has been able to consistently win his increasingly Democratic suburban district north of Chicago in spite of the state and national political trends that have cut against his party. Last year, after surviving a difficult 2006 challenge, Kirk raised more money than any other House Republican ($5.45 million) and won a tough 53-47% victory in a district that favorite son Obama carried with 61% of the vote. Furthermore, Kirk’s moderate issue stances puts him in step with the typical Illinois voter.

Should Ms. Madigan eventually decided to run for the Senate, Rep. Kirk pivoting into the Governor’s race carries great benefits for the national GOP. Sources close to the Republican National Committee and the party’s House leadership agree that Kirk becoming Governor would give them an ability to hold the line on congressional and legislative redistricting, something all states must address after the 2010 Census. (Six Republicans are already in the Governor’s race, but it’s already pretty clear none of them can beat Quinn, let alone Madigan.) Illinois will likely lose one congressional seat in reapportionment and, without controlling a legislative house or the Governor’s office, the congressional delegation – currently a dozen Democrats and seven Republicans -- could become even more lopsided.

Kirk’s strategy is simple, solid, and smart. He just waits until Madigan declares for Senate or Governor, then runs for the other office. This sets up the Democrats with a contentious primary battle in one contest and makes them vulnerable to him in either the Senate or Governor’s race because they can’t pair him against Madigan.

Those expecting Rep. Kirk to soon make an announcement about his political plans for 2010 will be disappointed. When Lisa Madigan declares, Mark Kirk will make his move, and then give the Republicans their first legitimate chance of winning a statewide office in the Land of Lincoln for more than a decade.