Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA) (1)
- Bluman v. Federal Election Comm’n (1)
- Buckley v. Valeo (1)
- Campaign finance (1)
- Christopher W. Bell (1)
-
- Citizens United v. F.E.C. (1)
- Davis v. F.E.C. (1)
- Electioneering communication (1)
- Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA) (1)
- Free speech (1)
- McConnell v. F.E.C. (1)
- McCutcheon v. F.E.C. (1)
- Political speech. (1)
- Saturday Night Live (1)
- Section 319(a) of BCRA (1)
- Senate Joint Resolution 19 (1)
- St. Mary’s Law Journal (1)
- St. Mary’s University School of Law (1)
- Student comment (1)
- Tillman Act (1)
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Immigration Law
A History Of The Law Clinics At St. Mary's University School Of Law., Sue Bentch
A History Of The Law Clinics At St. Mary's University School Of Law., Sue Bentch
St. Mary's Law Journal
Abstract Forthcoming.
Enforcement Of Noncompetition Agreements: Protecting Public Interests Through An Entrepreneurial Approach., Griffin Toronjo Pivateau
Enforcement Of Noncompetition Agreements: Protecting Public Interests Through An Entrepreneurial Approach., Griffin Toronjo Pivateau
St. Mary's Law Journal
Abstract Forthcoming.
A Constitutional Amendment Allowing Broader Campaign-Finance Reform Would Not Criminalize Political Satire., Christopher W. Bell
A Constitutional Amendment Allowing Broader Campaign-Finance Reform Would Not Criminalize Political Satire., Christopher W. Bell
St. Mary's Law Journal
Campaign finance remains a perennial issue, because contributions and expenditures define the political campaigns which shape our democracy. While a majority of the American public supports limiting campaign spending, campaign finance reform remains near the bottom of most voters’ priorities. Reformers have called the lack of the public’s interest “[o]ne of the persistent mysteries of campaign finance reform.” Citizens United v. F.E.C. focused national attention on the role of money in politics. Citizens United evoked such strong reactions, because it represents the two competing versions of the concept of freedom of speech: “free speech as serving liberty” and “free speech …