Law Commons^™

2003-2004 Supreme Court Term: Another Losing Season For The First Amendment, Joel M. Gora

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Financing Elections And "Appearance Of Corruption": Citizen Attitudes And Behavior In 2012, Molly J. Walker Wilson

Catholic University Law Review

As political spending reaches new highs in the 2012 election cycle, and as the controversy surrounding wealthy donors and interest groups grows, polls demonstrate a surge of cynicism among Americans who profess a belief that the American political system is corrupt. The Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United made possible the most recent expansion of political spending. In this case, the question was whether allowing corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts of money on political advertising would result in corruption or the appearance of corruption. The majority on the Court determined that it would not. Many observers have …

Campaign Finance And Political Gerrymandering Decisions In The October 2005 Term, Burt Neuborne

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

First Amendment Decisions In The October 2005 Term, Joel Gora

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Citizens Disunited: Mccutcheon V. Federal Election Commission, Adam Lamparello

Adam Lamparello

We have a separate but unequal Constitution. The wealthy are democracy’s darlings, the middle class are its stepchildren, and the poor are its orphans. And the Constitution’s written and unwritten rights are alive for the wealthy, merely evolving for the middle class, and dead for the poor.

One thing, however, should not be disputed: wealthy individuals are entitled to fully enjoy the Constitution’s textual guarantees. Indeed, the notion that Congress—through aggregate limits on individual contributions—may limit the number of candidates to which they can contribute is troubling. But there is a reason. Everyone else—including the poor and middle class—are entitled …

Campaign Finance, Federalism, And The Case Of The Long-Armed Donor, Todd E. Pettys

Todd E. Pettys

In its ruling last Term in McCutcheon v. FEC, the Court struck down federal campaign-finance laws that limited the aggregate amount of money that Shaun McCutcheon and other would-be campaign donors could give to a variety of political committees and to individuals running for Congress in states and districts other than their own. Chief Justice Roberts began his opinion for the plurality by declaring that "[t]here is no right more basic in our democracy than the right to participate in electing our political leaders." Retired justice John Paul Stevens has argued that the Court's ruling in McCutcheon is "a grossly …

Hobby Lobby And The Pathology Of Citizens United, Ellen D. Katz

Articles

Four years ago, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission held that for-profit corporations possess a First Amendment right to make independent campaign expenditures. In so doing, the United States Supreme Court invited speculation that such corporations might possess other First Amendment rights as well. The petitioners in Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius are now arguing that for-profit corporations are among the intended beneficiaries of the Free Exercise Clause and, along with the respondents in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, that they also qualify as “persons” under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Neither suggestion follows inexorably from Citizens United, …