Election Law Commons^™

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 …

On Dejudicializing American Campaign Finance Law, Richard Briffault

Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court dominates American campaign finance law. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission dramatically illustrates this basic truth, but Citizens United is nothing new. The Court has been the preeminent force in shaping and constraining our campaign finance laws since Buckley v. Valeo, and the Court's role as arbiter of what regulations may or may not be enforced only continues to grow. The President of the United States can wag his finger at the Court during the State of the Union Address and denounce its Citizens United ruling to the Justices' faces on national television, but even he …

Davis V. Fec: The Roberts Court's Continuing Attack On Campaign Finance Reform, Richard Briffault

Faculty Scholarship

In Davis v. FEC, decided on the last day of the October 2007 Term, a closely divided Supreme Court invalidated the so-called Millionaires' Amendment, which was a provision added to the Federal Election Campaign Act ("FECA") as part of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act ("BCRA") of 2002 to make it easier for Senate and House candidates to raise private contributions when they run against an opponent who uses a substantial amount of personal wealth to pay for his or her campaign. From the reform perspective, the loss of the Millionaires' Amendment was not of great moment. The Amendment was …

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.

Wrtl And Randall: The Roberts Court And The Unsettling Of Campaign Finance Law, Richard Briffault

Faculty Scholarship

The first term of the Roberts Court was a potentially pivotal moment in campaign finance law. The Court both broke its pattern of deference to federal and state regulations that had marked the last half-dozen years and began to take a more critical approach to campaign finance restrictions. In Randall v. Sorrell, the Court struck down a Vermont law that sought to limit expenditures and to lower contributions in state and local elections. The expenditure restriction decision was no surprise, as it essentially reaffirmed the Court's rejection of expenditure limits in Buckley v. Valeo three decades ago. But the …

The Return Of Spending Limits: Campaign Finance After Landell V. Sorrell, Richard Briffault

Faculty Scholarship

On August 18, 2004, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the First Amendment, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo, does not preclude mandatory limitations on campaign expenditures.In Landell v. Sorrell, the court concluded that limitations imposed by the state of Vermont on candidate spending in state election campaigns are "supported by [the state's] compelling interests in safeguarding Vermont's democratic process from 1) the corruptive influence of excessive and unbridled fundraising and 2) the effect that perpetual fundraising has on the time of candidates and elected officials.^" To …

Reforming Campaign Finance Reform: A Review Of Voting With Dollars, Richard Briffault

Faculty Scholarship

On March 27, 2002, President George W. Bush signed the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 ("BCRA") into law. The culmination of a six-year legislative and political struggle, BCRA works the most comprehensive change in federal campaign finance law in nearly three decades. BCRA addresses a broad range of issues, including soft money, issue-advocacy advertising, fundraising on federal property, campaign activities of foreign nationals, and penalties for violation of campaign finance laws. Enacted in the face of intense political opposition, BCRA, if it stands up in court, is a significant reform achievement.

Or is it? BCRA closely follows the main …