Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- First Amendment (2)
- Campaign finance (1)
- Citizens United (1)
- Citizens United v. FEC (1)
- Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (1)
-
- Copyright (1)
- Copyright Act of 1976 (1)
- Corporations (1)
- Election law (1)
- Federal Election Commission (1)
- Federal election law (1)
- Federal shield law (1)
- Fifth Amendment (1)
- First amendment (1)
- Free press (1)
- Free speech (1)
- Freedom of press (1)
- Journalism (1)
- Journalist (1)
- Labor unions (1)
- Mandatory deposit (1)
- Mandatory deposit requirement (1)
- National security (1)
- Press (1)
- Qualified evidentiary privilege (1)
- SCOTUS (1)
- Section 407(a) (1)
- Section 407(a) of the Copyright Act of 1976 (1)
- Shield law (1)
- Supreme Court (1)
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
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 …