The ABA Council on Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar met over the weekend. The Council decided to leave the faculty tenure requirement in place. The news that the Council had considered weakening it to a requirement of job security met with intense opposition from individual faculty and the Association of American Law Schools. Readers will probably know that I was in favor of the change because I believe it would law school administrations more flexibility in dealing with law school costs in times of lower enrollment (like now). The National Law Journal published details surrounding the decision as well as a few others made at the meeting.
Harvard is seeking a Wikipedian in Residence. That person, according to an article in The Atlantic, is “someone who can serve as a kind of liaison between Wikipedia and the academic, cultural, and intellectual institutions whose source material its entries rely on.” That would be Harvard and its collections in this case. Other major institutions such as the British Museum have such a person in place. I think it’s a great idea though I wonder how the Wikipedia community will take to the idea. There have been situations in the past where pages became battlegrounds between historians and the editors.
Salon features a story about McCutcheon v. FEC which is an election case pending before the Supreme Court. The question presented is:
Federal law imposes two types of limits on individual political contributions. Base limits restrict the amount an individual may contribute to a candidate committee ($2,500 per election), a national-party committee ($30,800 per calendar year), a state, local, and district party committee ($10,000 per calendar year (combined limit)), and a political-action committee (“PAC”) ($5,000 per calendar year). 2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(1) (current limits provided). Biennial limits restrict the aggregate amount an individual may contribute biennially as follows: $46,200 to candidate committees; $70,800 to all other committees, of which no more than $46,200 may go to non-national-party committees (e.g., state parties and PACs). 2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(3) (current limits provided) (see Appendix at 20a (text of statute)). Appellants present five questions:
1. Whether the biennial limit on contributions to non-candidate committees, 2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(3)(B), is unconstitutional for lacking a constitutionally cognizable interest as applied to contributions to national-party committees.
2. Whether the biennial limits on contributions to non-candidate committees, 2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(3)(B), are unconstitutional facially for lacking a constitutionally cognizable interest.
3. Whether the biennial limits on contributions to non-candidate committees are unconstitutionally too low, as applied and facially.
4. Whether the biennial limit on contributions to candidate committees, 2 U.S. C. 441a(a)(3)(A), is unconstitutional for lacking a constitutionally cognizable interest.
5. Whether the biennial limit on contributions to candidate committees, 2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(3)(A), is unconstitutionally too low.
If one hated Citizen United for striking down contribution limits, one will hate this case as well if the Court strikes down the remaining limits. On the other hand, plutocrats with political interests everywhere should rejoice.
And finally, the Google/Viacom battle over alleged YouTube copyright violations was settled according to news reports. Viacom lost twice at trial on the DMCA safe harbor provisions that YouTube claimed. It took seven years to get to this point. I’ve often said win, lose, or settle, the lawyers get paid. CNET News has a good analysis of the case. — Mark