Election Law Commons^™

Speech Inequality After Janus V. Afscme, Charlotte Garden

Indiana Law Journal

This Article explores the growing divide between the Roberts Court’s treatment of the free speech rights of wealthy individuals and corporations in campaign finance cases as compared to its treatment of the rights of public-sector labor unions and their members. First, it highlights some internal contradictions in the Janus Court’s analysis. Then, it discusses the growing—yet mostly ignored—divergence in the Court’s treatment of corporate and labor speakers with respect to the use of market influence to achieve political influence.

The Article has two Parts. In Part I, I explain how the Court reached its decision in Janus before critiquing the …

The Democracy Ratchet, Derek T. Muller

Indiana Law Journal

This Article proceeds in five Parts. Part I identifies recent instances in which federal courts have invoked a version of the Democracy Ratchet. It identifies the salient traits of the Democracy Ratchet in these cases. Part II describes why the Democracy Ratchet has gained attention, primarily as a tactic of litigants and as a convenient benchmark in preliminary injunction cases. Part III examines the history of the major federal causes of action concerning election administration—Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the Burdick balancing test, and the Equal Protection Clause. In each, it traces the path of the doctrine to …

Whistleblowing Speech And The First Amendment, Ronald J. Krotoszynski Jr.

Indiana Law Journal

Alexander Meiklejohn, the iconic First Amendment scholar who expounded the democratic self-government theory of the freedom of speech, posited that for demo-cratic self-government to function, the voters themselves must possess the infor-mation necessary to hold the government accountable. Yet, the information neces-sary for the citizenry to render wise electoral verdicts not uncommonly belongs to the government itself, and government officials often prove highly reluctant to share information that reflects badly on them and their work. The lack of critically im-portant information about the government’s performance makes it difficult, if not impossible, for voters to hold government accountable on Election Day. …

Citizens Disunited: Mccutcheon V. Federal Election Commission, Adam Lamparello

Indiana Law Journal

The wealthy are democracy’s darlings, the middle class are its stepchildren, and the poor are its orphans. Corporate giants line the pockets of senatorial candidates—and purchase influence—while average citizens walk into a polling station and cast a largely symbolic vote. Stated simply, money creates a soft inequality by dominating the political process. Like the “soft bigotry of low expectations,”69 the soft inequality embedded in our political system has created a liberty gap between the prosperous and the poor. McCutcheon was an opportunity to bridge this gap. Instead, the Court enshrined the status quo by holding that Congress could only regulate …

The Jekyll And Hyde Of First Amendment Limits On The Regulation Of Judicial Campaign Speech, Charles G. Geyh

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.