Law Commons^™

What Did They Do And What Does It Mean? The Three-Judge Court's Decision In Mcconnell V. Fec And The Implications For The Supreme Court, Richard Briffault

Faculty Scholarship

My role at this symposium is to provide a brief overview of the three-judge court's decision in McConnell v. FEC, review the opinions, piece together what the court actually decided, and see how the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 ("BCRA") now stands. I will try to do that briefly, while giving a few general comments about what the court's opinions tell us about the state of campaign finance law today. As a preliminary matter, the three-judge court's opinions provide us with two radically different world views – almost two different intellectual universes – for thinking about campaign finance …

The Future Of Reform: Campaign Finance After The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act Of 2002, Richard Briffault

Faculty Scholarship

On March 27, 2002, President George W. Bush signed the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 ("BCRA" or "the Act") into law. The culmination of a protracted six-year legislative and political struggle, BCRA is the most significant change in federal campaign finance law since the early 1970s, when the Federal Election Campaign Act ("FECA") of 1971 and FECA Amendments of 1974 were adopted. The Act addresses a broad range of campaign finance issues, including fundraising on federal property, contributions by foreign nationals, donations to the presidential inauguration committee, electronic filing and Internet access to campaign disclosure reports, and penalties for …

The Political Parties And Campaign Finance Reform, Richard Briffault

Faculty Scholarship

Recent campaign finance innovations of the major political parties have blown large and widening holes in federal campaign finance regulation. The relationship between parties and candidates also challenges the basic doctrinal categories of campaign finance law. The Constitution permits regulation of campaign finances to deal with the danger of corruption. But some judges and commentators have argued that the parties present no danger of corruption. This Article finds that, although parties play a positive role in funding campaigns, certain party practices raise the specter of corruption in the constitutional sense. Moreover, due to the close connection between parties and candidates, …

Campaign Finance, The Parties And The Court: A Comment On Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee V. Federal Elections Commission, Richard Briffault

Faculty Scholarship

Last term, In Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court considered a direct attack on the constitutionality of the Federal Election Campaign Act's ("FECA") limits on political party expenditures. Colorado Republican was the Court's first campaign finance case in six years and the first in which the four Justices appointed by Presidents Bush and Clinton had an opportunity to participate. Colorado Republican was also the first case in the twenty-year regime of Buckley v. Valeo concerned with the constitutionality of restrictions on parties. Coming at a time of rising public concern, increased legislative activity, …

Comments On Campaign Finance Reform, Henry P. Monaghan

Faculty Scholarship

Realistically viewed, the public does not care much about campaign finance. However, the commentators and politicians involved with the campaign process care a great deal. Yet, of those who have expressed any view at all about our topic, few still believe that the existing distinction between expenditures and contributions is satisfactory.

I agree with Judge Winter's statement that, from the point of view of the speaker, the distinction between contributions and expenditures is pretty weak. This is because the choice between the two is made by a donor, who looks for the most efficient way to espouse political ideas and …