Law Commons^™

Prosecuting Conduit Campaign Contributions - Hard Time For Soft Money, Robert D. Probasco

Robert Probasco

In recent years, there have been several high-profile prosecutions for violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act, involving contributions nominally by one individual but funded or reimbursed by another individual deemed to be the true contributor. Prosecutions of these “conduit contribution” cases have been surprising in at least three significant respects. First, the prosecutions have been based on violations of FECA’s reporting requirements and may not have involved any violations of the substantive prohibitions or limitations of contributions. Second, the defendants were the donors rather than campaign officials who actually filed reports with FECA. Third, the cases were prosecuted as …

Voting, Spending, And The Right To Participate, Robert Yablon

Northwestern University Law Review

While the law governing the electoral process has changed dramatically in the past decade, one thing has stayed the same: Courts and commentators continue to view voting in elections and spending on elections through distinct constitutional lenses. On the spending side, First Amendment principles guide judicial analysis, and recent decisions have been strongly deregulatory. On the voting side, courts rely on a makeshift equal protection-oriented framework, and they have tended to be more accepting of regulation. Key voting and spending precedents seldom cite each other. Similarly, election law scholars typically address voting and spending in isolation.

This Article challenges the …

Buckley V. Valeo, Political Disclosure And The First Amendment, Trevor Potter

Akron Law Review

Put differently, the reality is that disclosure’s constitutional status is unclear. The Supreme Court’s jurisprudential framework is often unpredictable. Even when the Court has been consistent in choosing a formal framework with which to approach disclosure laws, it has been inconsistent and unpredictable in applying that framework. To be sure, this issue takes on particular urgency in light of the importance both sides in the campaign finance debate attach to disclosure of campaign spending (however differently defined), and the existence of the Internet as a vehicle for immediate mass dissemination of information required to be reported. Accordingly, providing an overview …

Buckley V. Valeo: A Landmark Of Political Freedom, Joel M. Gora

Akron Law Review

It is appropriate for an article about the Supreme Court's Buckley opinion to appear in a law review in the Buckeye State. In terms of poll rankings, the Buckeye football team finished last season ranked number two in the polls, which was much better than the Buckley decision, which many academics have put on their list of the ten worst decisions of this century. While the football pollsters were right in ranking the Buckeyes so highly, the academic pundits are dead wrong in rating the Buckley decision so poorly.

House Of Cards: How Rediscovering Republicanism Brings It Crashing Down, Jonathan E. Maddison

Catholic University Law Review

Using Frank Underwood’s maniacal political journey in the Netflix series House of Cards as an example of what is wrong with American politics, this article argues that the Supreme Court’s misapplication of First Amendment principles in Citizens United and other key campaign finance cases plays a large and problematic role. Providing an extensive historical overview of republicanism and First Amendment jurisprudence, this article suggests that a return to republican ideals, while not perfect, is both the solution and proper tool of analysis to be used by the Supreme Court for campaign finance cases and beyond.

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 …

Prosecuting Conduit Campaign Contributions - Hard Time For Soft Money, Robert D. Probasco

Faculty Scholarship

In recent years, there have been several high-profile prosecutions for violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act, involving contributions nominally by one individual but funded or reimbursed by another individual deemed to be the true contributor. Prosecutions of these “conduit contribution” cases have been surprising in at least three significant respects. First, the prosecutions have been based on violations of FECA’s reporting requirements and may not have involved any violations of the substantive prohibitions or limitations of contributions. Second, the defendants were the donors rather than campaign officials who actually filed reports with FECA. Third, the cases were prosecuted as …

The First Amendment In The Supreme Court: The Future Lies Ahead, Dean Joel M. Gora

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.