Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Associations institutions etc. (1)
- Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) (1)
- Campaign finance (1)
- Campaign finance jurisprudence (1)
- Campaign voucher (1)
-
- Citizens United (1)
- Columbia Law Review Sidebar (1)
- Contribution limit (1)
- Direct Democracy; Public Interest; Candidate Elections; Voting Ethics; Political Morality; Representation (1)
- Discrimination (1)
- Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) (1)
- Independent spending (1)
- Shelby County v. Holder (1)
- Spending limit (1)
- Super PAC (1)
- United States (1)
- Voting Rights Act of 1965 (1)
- Willamette Law Review (1)
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
The Political Morality Of Voting In Direct Democracy, Michael Serota, Ethan J. Leib
The Political Morality Of Voting In Direct Democracy, Michael Serota, Ethan J. Leib
Faculty Scholarship
The voting levers in candidate elections and in direct democracy elections are identical. The political obligations that bind the citizens that pull them are not. This Essay argues that voters in direct democracy elections, unlike their counterparts in candidate elections, serve as representatives of the people and are, accordingly, bound by the ethics of political representation. Upending the traditional dichotomy between representative and direct democracy, this Essay explains why citizens voting in direct democracy are representative legislators who must vote in the public interest and must not vote in their private interests.
Mapping A Post-Shelby County Contingency Strategy, Guy-Uriel Charles, Luis Fuentes-Rohwer
Mapping A Post-Shelby County Contingency Strategy, Guy-Uriel Charles, Luis Fuentes-Rohwer
Faculty Scholarship
This Essay was written for the Yale Law Journal Online Symposium on the future of section 5 of the Voting Rights Act after Shelby County v. Holder. Professors Guy-Uriel E. Charles and Luis Fuentes-Rohwer argue that voting rights activists ought to be prepared for a future in which section 5 is not part of the landscape. If the Court strikes down section 5, an emerging ecosystem of private entities and organized interest groups of various stripes—what they call institutional intermediaries—may be willing and able to mimic the elements that made section 5 an effective regulatory device. As voting rights …
Coordination Reconsidered, Richard Briffault
Coordination Reconsidered, Richard Briffault
Faculty Scholarship
At the heart of American campaign finance law is the distinction drawn by the Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo between contributions and expenditures. According to the Court, contributions may be limited because they pose the dangers of corruption and the appearance of corruption, but expenditures pose no such dangers and therefore may not be limited. The distinction between the two types of campaign spending turns not on the form – the fact that contributions proceed from a donor to a candidate, while expenditures involve direct efforts to influence the voters – but on whether the campaign practice implicates the …
The Future Of Public Funding, Richard Briffault
The Future Of Public Funding, Richard Briffault
Faculty Scholarship
The title of my talk today is the “the future of public funding,” and I am tempted to say “there’s not much future” for public funding. The 2012 presidential election marked the first time since the presidential public funding law was enacted in 1974 that neither major party presidential candidate accepted public funding in the general election and the first time that no significant contender for a major party nomination accepted public funding in the primary phase. Congressional public funding appears dead in the water. In the last Congress, public funding proposals were referred to House and Senate committees, where …