Last week on the PBS NewsHour, Judy Woodruff asked Nancy Pelosi if the GOP would take back the house.  Pelosi replied “We take it one district at a time.”

“Will the Republicans take back the House?” is perhaps the most frequently asked question in Washington, and is usually followed up with “By how much?”  Regardless of what you think about Speaker Pelosi, the lady didn’t get to be Speaker of the House by not being able to count votes. So lets have a look “…one district at a time.”

Republican challengers and open seat candidates lead in at least 51 House districts currently held by Democrats, according to public polling.

Following Nancy’s methodology, if the election were held on October 9 instead of November 2, the GOP would gain back the majority with 230 seats, assuming all tied races and races where Dems cling to a narrow lead break against the Republicans. Note that 17 more seats are within the margin of error of a standard poll.

Thanks, Nancy, for the vote of confidence.

(more…)

**Link Fixed**

Today the United States Supreme Court released its decision in the case of Citizens United vs. the Federal Election Commission.  This long overdue decision is a victory not only for Citizens United but also for the First Amendment.  The majority opinion clearly and decisively explained that “[n]o sufficient governmental interest justifies limits on the political speech of nonprofit or for-profit corporations.”

The case decided this morning revolves around the 2007 film Hillary the Movie.  The film, which took an in-depth and critical look at the career of Hillary Clinton, was set to appear on cable television via video on demand during the Democratic presidential primary season in 2008.  The broadcast was prohibited by the so-called Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, because Citizens United was organized as a corporation and had accepted a small amount of contributions from corporations to finance the film.

The government walks down a very treacherous path when it attempts to regulate speech, whether on film, print, or television.  Previous case law including Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and McConnell vs. FEC had created a regulatory scheme so complex one dare not speak without consulting a lawyer.  Even then, one should only consult an election lawyer with years of experience because the rules are so complex and precise.  As a lawyer you’d think I’d welcome the business, but not at the expense of the First Amendment. (more…)