Law Commons^™

The Perverse Effect Of Campaign Contribution Limits: Making The Amount Of Money That Can Be Offered Smaller Increases The Likelihood Of Corruption In The Federal Legislature, Philip Nichols

Philip M. Nichols

Corruption is an important issue, which poses a special threat to the democratic institutions and integrity of the United States. The purpose of campaign finance regulation is to reduce or eliminate corruption. Congress has enacted substantial legislation for this purpose, yet corruption flourishes. This paper suggests that the campaign finance laws fail to take into account the actual decisionmaking process of a legislator contemplating a corrupt act. By diagramming that process, this paper demonstrates that the legislation, which focuses on limiting the size of individual campaign contributions, actually increases the likelihood of corruption. An understanding of the decisionmaking process points …

The Supreme Court Perspective Of Media Effects As Expressed In Campaign Finance Reform, John A. Fortunato

John A Fortunato

The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2002 amended campaign finance law by banning unlimited soft money contributions to political parties and reforming the financing of advertising close to an election. In this ruling the Court is clearly concerned with the amount of money being donated to political candidates which leads to the appearance of impropriety in gaining access to elected officials that in turn may influence legislation. In ruling on the constitutionality of this legislation, the Supreme Court also provided insight into its view of mass media effects. In applying the principles of cultivation theory and the media framing …

Revisiting The Fable Of Reform, Allison Hayward

Allison Hayward

The modern campaign finance fable has its root in progressive political arguments. Advocates placed great faith in the management by experts of social problems, and the application of scientific principles to politics. For campaign finance reform, this meant the study of campaigns, the diagnosis of corruption and the prescription of legislative remedies. To sustain this idea over time, as it turns out, required a fable. That fable justified past reform efforts as calculated, measured and reasonable remedies, prescribed by Congress (or legislators, or regulators) after careful examination of political ailments. As new symptoms arise, the fable taught that lawmakers (or …

Voodoo Economics: A Look Abroad For A Supply-Side Solution To America's Campaign-Finance Riddle, Matthew T. Sanderson

Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law

The title of this Note "voodoo economics" is, at its core, an analogy: U.S. campaign-finance regulation operates like a price ceiling in the political money marketplace. Political campaigns are financed through money-for-access transactions and campaign-finance regulation caps the level of exchange. Like any other price ceiling, regulation is both effective and flawed. It suppresses the "price" of political money but inherently falls victim to some market players' avoidance activities. This price-ceiling analogy, among other things, makes apparent that many proposals forwarded by pro-regulation and deregulation advocates cannot solve the United States' century-old campaign-finance riddle. Instead, attention should turn to shaping …

Lobbying And Campaign Finance: Separate And Together, Richard Briffault

Faculty Scholarship

The relationship between lobbying and campaign finance is complex, contested, and changing. Lobbying and campaign finance are two important forms of political activity that combine money and communication in ways that have significant implications for democratic self-government. The two practices frequently interact and reinforce each other, with individuals, organizations, and interest groups deploying both lobbyists and campaign money to advance their goals. Congress, in 2007, for the first time explicitly recognized the intersection of campaign finance and lobbying when it adopted legislation specifically regulating the campaign finance activities of lobbyists. At roughly the same time, several of the leading candidates …

Decline And Fall? The Roberts Court And The Challenges To Campaign Finance Law, Richard Briffault

Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court has had a major impact on the development of campaign finance law. Court decisions have barred most expenditure limits, upheld contribution restrictions and disclosure requirements, and limited the kinds of electoral ads that can be subject to regulation. In the McConnell decision in 2003 the Court demonstrated a greater openness to campaign finance regulation when it upheld McCain-Feingold's soft money and issue advocacy restrictions. Since McConnell, however, the composition of the Court has changed, and in two decisions in the past two years, the new majority has been much more hostile to campaign finance limits. In …

Can Congress Authorize The Opponents Of Self-Financed Candidates To Receive Extra-Large Contributions?, Richard Briffault

Faculty Scholarship

Is the so-called Millionaires’ Amendment, which permits federal candidates who are running against self-funded opponents to receive contributions significantly above the standard federal statutory ceiling constitutional?

Federal law caps contributions to federal candidates, but the Supreme Court has ruled that limits on how much money a candidate can contribute to his or her own campaign are unconstitutional. This case tests the 2002 Millionaires’ Amendment, which enables candidates for Congress running against self-financing opponents to obtain contributions well above the ordinary statutory ceiling and also imposes additional reporting requirements on self-funding candidates.

Corporate Political Speech And The Balance Of Powers: A New Framework For Campaign Finance Jurisprudence In Wisconsin Right To Life, Frances R. Hill

Articles

No abstract provided.

Reading Tea Leaves In Federal Election Commission V. Wisconsin Right To Life: Hope For A Buckley Evolution?, Michael Anthony Lawrence

Michael Anthony Lawrence

During its 2006-07 Term the U.S. Supreme Court decided Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., the latest in a long line of cases sprouting from the seminal 1976 First Amendment campaign finance case, Buckley v. Valeo. In Wisconsin Right to Life, the Court concluded that Section 203 of the federal Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, prohibiting the use of corporate funds to finance “electioneering communications” during a specified pre-election period, constituted an as-applied violation of a non-profit corporation’s free speech rights.

Wisconsin Right to Life offers useful insights into the Roberts Court’s thinking on the lively …