Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Speech (3)
- Constitution (2)
- Election (2)
- First Amendment (2)
- Politics (2)
-
- Supreme Court (2)
- Vote (2)
- Buckley (1)
- California (1)
- California Supreme Court (1)
- Campaign (1)
- Campaign Finance (1)
- Campaigns (1)
- Candidates (1)
- Citizens United (1)
- Contributions (1)
- Conviction (1)
- Corporations (1)
- Corruption (1)
- Disenfranchisement (1)
- Employment (1)
- Expenditures (1)
- FECA (1)
- Federal Election Campaign Act (1)
- Felon (1)
- Finance (1)
- Free Speech (1)
- Government (1)
- Harris v. Quinn (1)
- Home Care Workers (1)
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law and Politics
Politics At Work After Citizens United, Ruben J. Garcia
Politics At Work After Citizens United, Ruben J. Garcia
Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review
There are seismic changes going on in the political system. The United States Supreme Court has constitutionalized the concentration of political power in the “one percent” in several recent decisions, including Citizens United v. FEC. At the same time, unions are representing a shrinking share of the workforce, and their political power is also being diminished. In order for unions to recalibrate the balance of political power at all, they must collaborate with grassroots community groups, as they have done in several recent campaigns. There are, however, various legal structures that make coordination between unions and nonunion groups difficult, …
The Falcon Cannot Hear The Falconer: How California's Initiative Process Is Creating An Untenable Constitution, Rudy Klapper
The Falcon Cannot Hear The Falconer: How California's Initiative Process Is Creating An Untenable Constitution, Rudy Klapper
Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review
Californians have always cherished the idea that ultimate political power lies in the people, an idea best represented by the state’s hugely influential initiative process. Today, however, that initiative power threatens to spiral out of control, thanks in large part to the California Supreme Court’s inability to construe appropriate limits on it. This has created an unbalanced government where the rights of minorities are easily circumscribed and the financial and political infrastructure of the state is in danger of buckling under the combined weight of dozens of initiatives. This Article argues that the judiciary’s haphazard interpretation of various rules and …
When Rhetoric Obscures Reality: The Definition Of Corruption And Its Shortcomings, Jessica Medina
When Rhetoric Obscures Reality: The Definition Of Corruption And Its Shortcomings, Jessica Medina
Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review
Due to public scorn after the unraveling of the Watergate scandal, the Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of the Federal Election Campaign Act’s restrictions on political contributions and expenditures. Buckley v. Valeo established that no legitimate government interest existed to justify restrictions on campaign expenditures, and only the prevention of corruption or the appearance of corruption could justify restrictions on campaign contributions. Since then, the Court has struggled to articulate a definition of corruption that balances First Amendment protections with the potential for improper influence. This Article argues that the Court’s current definition of corruption is too narrow, and proposes …
"The Only Thing We Have To Fear Is Fear Itself": The Constitutional Infirmities With Felon Disenfranchisement And Citing Fear As The Rationale For Depriving Felons Of Their Right To Vote, Erika Stern
Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review
Felon disenfranchisement, a mechanism by which felons and former felons are deprived of their right to vote, is a widespread practice that has been challenged on many grounds. However, felon disenfranchisement has not yet been properly challenged under the First Amendment. This Article argues that states implicate felons’ First Amendment rights through felon disenfranchisement without citing adequate or compelling rationales to justify this severe intrusion. In fact, at least one rationale, a rationale based on the fear of the way felons might vote, is itself inconsistent with First Amendment principles. Disenfranchising felons based on a fear of the way that …