Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- First Amendment (7)
- Supreme Court (5)
- Speech (4)
- Campaign (2)
- Citizens United (2)
-
- Corporations (2)
- Election (2)
- Federal Election Commission (2)
- Finance (2)
- First amendment (2)
- Free speech (2)
- Hobby Lobby (2)
- Politics (2)
- United States (2)
- Voting (2)
- ACA (1)
- AIRFA (1)
- Anti-slapp (1)
- Antidiscrimination (1)
- Boerne (1)
- Buckley (1)
- Burroughs (1)
- Burwell (1)
- Campaign Finance (1)
- Campaign finance (1)
- Campaigns (1)
- Candidates (1)
- Citizens (1)
- Citizens United v. FEC (1)
- Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (1)
Articles 1 - 12 of 12
Full-Text Articles in Law
Free Speech In The Balance: Judicial Sanctions And Frivolous Slapp Suits, Shine Sean Tu, Nicholas F. Stump
Free Speech In The Balance: Judicial Sanctions And Frivolous Slapp Suits, Shine Sean Tu, Nicholas F. Stump
Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review
The balance between free speech and access to courts in defamation tort actions is fraught with public policy concerns. On one hand, plaintiffs should have unencumbered access to the justice system to remedy real harms brought upon them by defamatory statements. However, defamation suits should not be wielded to suppress the constitutionally protected free speech rights of news organizations and of concerned citizens that are vital for well-functioning democracies. This Article argues for a new type of remedy, namely enhanced Rule 11 attorney sanctions, such as suspension or debarment, that should be available to defendants of defamation suits brought by …
Democracy, Deference, And Compromise: Understanding And Reforming Campaign Finance Jurisprudence, Scott P. Bloomberg
Democracy, Deference, And Compromise: Understanding And Reforming Campaign Finance Jurisprudence, Scott P. Bloomberg
Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review
In Citizens United, the Supreme Court interpreted the government’s interest in preventing corruption as being limited to preventing quid pro quo— cash-for-votes—corruption. This narrow interpretation drastically circumscribed legislatures’ abilities to regulate the financing of elections, in turn prompting scholars to propose a number of reforms for broadening the government interest in campaign finance cases. These reforms include urging the Court to recognize a new government interest such as political equality, to adopt a broader understanding of corruption, and to be more deferential to legislatures in defining corruption.
Building upon that body of scholarship, this Article begins with a descriptive …
Hot Off The Press: An Argument For A Federal Shield Law Affording A Qualified Evidentiary Privilege To Journalists In Light Of Renewed Concerns About Freedom Of The Press And National Security, Nicole N. Wentworth
Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Copyright Act’S Mandatory-Deposit Requirement: Unnecessary And Unconstitutional, Drew Thornley
The Copyright Act’S Mandatory-Deposit Requirement: Unnecessary And Unconstitutional, Drew Thornley
Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review
Many people are unaware of a federal copyright statute that requires owners of material published in the United States to furnish the federal government with two copies of each item published. Section 407(a) of the Copyright Act of 1976 (17 U.S.C. § 407) states that “the owner of copyright or of the exclusive right of publication in a work published in the United States shall deposit, within three months after the date of such publication—(1) two complete copies of the best edition; or (2) if the work is a sound recording, two complete phonorecords of the best edition, together with …
Let Them Eat Cake: Why Public Proprietors Of Wedding Goods And Services Must Equally Serve All People, Labdhi Sheth, Molly Christ
Let Them Eat Cake: Why Public Proprietors Of Wedding Goods And Services Must Equally Serve All People, Labdhi Sheth, Molly Christ
Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review
No abstract provided.
Rfra And The Affordable Care Act: Does The Contraception Mandate Discriminate Against Religious Employers?, Alisa Lalana
Rfra And The Affordable Care Act: Does The Contraception Mandate Discriminate Against Religious Employers?, Alisa Lalana
Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review
No abstract provided.
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, …
Half-Baked: The Demand By For-Profit Businesses For Religious Exemptions From Selling To Same-Sex Couples, James M. Donovan
Half-Baked: The Demand By For-Profit Businesses For Religious Exemptions From Selling To Same-Sex Couples, James M. Donovan
Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review
Should bakers be required to make cakes for same-sex weddings? This Article unravels the eclectic arguments that are offered in support of a religious exemption from serving gay customers in the wake of Obergefell.
Preliminary issues first consider invocations of a libertarian right to exclude. Rather than being part of our concept of liberty, this right to exclude from commercial premises is a new rule devised to prevent African Americans from participating in free society. Instead of expanding this racist rule to likewise bar gays from the marketplace, it should be reset to the antebellum standard of free access …
Diy Solutions To The Hobby Lobby Problem, Kristin Haule
Diy Solutions To The Hobby Lobby Problem, Kristin Haule
Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review
No abstract provided.
Balancing Disclosure And Privacy Interests In Campaign Finance, Sarah Harding
Balancing Disclosure And Privacy Interests In Campaign Finance, Sarah Harding
Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review
The law of campaign finance pits two important First Amendment interests against each other: disclosure and privacy. The Supreme Court has recognized the need to balance these two interests to allow for effective elections and to safeguard individual rights. However, through the years the Court has failed to balance these interests equally, resulting in vacillating decisions that unfairly sacrifice one for the other. From Burroughs v. United States in 1934 to Citizens United v. FEC in 2010, the Court has failed to provide a workable roadmap for legislatures in the creation of campaign finance disclosure laws and for lower courts …
"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 …
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 …