Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 10 of 10

Full-Text Articles in Law

Public Corruption Concerns And Counter-Majoritarian Democracy Definition In Citizens United V. Federal Election Commission, Daaron Kimmel Dec 2011

Public Corruption Concerns And Counter-Majoritarian Democracy Definition In Citizens United V. Federal Election Commission, Daaron Kimmel

Chicago-Kent Law Review

In determining the shape of the free speech rights and anti-corruption concerns that courts must balance in campaign finance cases, judges are influenced by their own underlying understandings of what an ideal democracy should look like. For judges to decide whether the government is appropriately regulating the political process, the rules that allow all citizens to interact with and shape their democracy, judges must first decide what that democracy ought to look like. This affords judges a great deal of discretion in campaign finance cases. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is a particularly bold judicial attempt to reshape the …


The Gratuities Debate And Campaign Reform – How Strong Is The Link?, George D. Brown Nov 2011

The Gratuities Debate And Campaign Reform – How Strong Is The Link?, George D. Brown

George D. Brown

The federal gratuities statute, 18 USC § 201(c), continues to be a source of confusion and contention. The confusion stems largely from problems of draftsmanship within the statute, as well as uncertainty concerning the relationship of the gratuities offense to bribery. Both offenses are contained in the same statute; the former is often seen as a lesser-included offense variety of the latter. The controversy stems from broader concerns about whether the receipt of gratuities by public officials, even from those they regulate, should be a crime. The argument that such conduct should not be criminalized can be traced to, and …


Conservative Justices Fail To See Corrupting Influence Of Money, Alan E. Garfield Mar 2011

Conservative Justices Fail To See Corrupting Influence Of Money, Alan E. Garfield

Alan E Garfield

No abstract provided.


On Dejudicializing American Campaign Finance Law, Richard Briffault Jan 2011

On Dejudicializing American Campaign Finance Law, Richard Briffault

Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court dominates American campaign finance law. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission dramatically illustrates this basic truth, but Citizens United is nothing new. The Court has been the preeminent force in shaping and constraining our campaign finance laws since Buckley v. Valeo, and the Court's role as arbiter of what regulations may or may not be enforced only continues to grow. The President of the United States can wag his finger at the Court during the State of the Union Address and denounce its Citizens United ruling to the Justices' faces on national television, but even he …


Corporations, Corruption, And Complexity: Campaign Finance After Citizens United, Richard Briffault Jan 2011

Corporations, Corruption, And Complexity: Campaign Finance After Citizens United, Richard Briffault

Faculty Scholarship

Few campaign finance cases have drawn more public attention than the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. FEC. The Court's invalidation of a sixty-year-old federal law – and comparable laws in two dozen states – banning corporations from engaging in independent spending in support of or opposition to candidates strongly affirms the right of corporations to engage in electoral advocacy. Critics – and most, albeit not all, of both the popular and academic commentary on the decision has been critical – have condemned the idea that corporations enjoy the same rights to spend on elections as natural persons. …


Citizens United And The Illusion Of Coherence, Richard L. Hasen Jan 2011

Citizens United And The Illusion Of Coherence, Richard L. Hasen

Michigan Law Review

The self-congratulatory tone of the majority and concurring opinions in last term's controversial Supreme Court blockbuster, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, extended beyond the trumpeting of an absolutist vision of the First Amendment that allows corporations to spend unlimited sums independently to support or oppose candidates for office. The triumphalism extended to the majority's view that it had imposed coherence on the unwieldy body of campaign finance jurisprudence by excising an "outlier" 1990 opinion, Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, which had upheld such corporate limits, and parts of a 2003 opinion, McConnell v. FEC, extending Austin to unions …


Charities And Lobbying: Institutional Rights In The Wake Of Citizens United, Lloyd Hitoshi Mayer Jan 2011

Charities And Lobbying: Institutional Rights In The Wake Of Citizens United, Lloyd Hitoshi Mayer

Journal Articles

One of the many aftershocks of the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Citizens United v. FEC is that the decision may raise constitutional questions for the long-standing limits on speech by charities. There has been much scholarly attention both before and after that decision on the limit for election-related speech by charities, but much less attention has been paid to the relating lobbying speech limit. This article seeks to close that gap by exploring that latter limit and its continued viability in the wake of Citizens United. I conclude that while Citizens United by itself does not undermine the limit …


Constitutional Conditions: Regulating Independent Political Expenditures By Government Contractors After Citizens United, Michael Boardman Dec 2010

Constitutional Conditions: Regulating Independent Political Expenditures By Government Contractors After Citizens United, Michael Boardman

Michael Boardman

A milestone in campaign finance jurisprudence, the Citizens United case sparked a political firestorm. Holding that all citizens and corporate entities are permitted to spend freely on elections, the Court overturned Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and parts of McConnell v. FEC, and mooted two other cases in the field. Only six months later, the House of Representatives passed the DISCLOSE Act in an overt attempt to counteract the Citizens United decision. The Act has received much attention for its heightened corporate disclosure requirements, but another of its lesser-debated provisions could prove more onerous for America’s wealthiest corporations and …


Corporate First Amendment Rights After Citizens United: An Analysis Of The Popular Movement To End The Constitutional Personhood Of Corporations, Susanna K. Ripken Dec 2010

Corporate First Amendment Rights After Citizens United: An Analysis Of The Popular Movement To End The Constitutional Personhood Of Corporations, Susanna K. Ripken

Susanna K. Ripken

No case in the Supreme Court’s last term was more controversial than Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (Citizens United). In a sharply divided 5:4 decision, the Court invalidated strict federal campaign finance laws and upheld the First Amendment right of corporations to spend unlimited sums of corporate money to support or oppose candidates in political elections. Although mainstream criticism of Citizens United was fierce and widely publicized, a lesser known response to the case is a grassroots popular movement calling for an amendment to the Constitution establishing that money is not speech and that human beings, not corporations, are …


Corporate First Amendment Rights After Citizens United: An Analysis Of The Popular Movement To End The Constitutional Personhood Of Corporations, Susanna K. Ripken Dec 2010

Corporate First Amendment Rights After Citizens United: An Analysis Of The Popular Movement To End The Constitutional Personhood Of Corporations, Susanna K. Ripken

Susanna K. Ripken

No case in the Supreme Court’s last term was more controversial than Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (Citizens United). In a sharply divided 5:4 decision, the Court invalidated strict federal campaign finance laws and upheld the First Amendment right of corporations to spend unlimited sums of corporate money to support or oppose candidates in political elections. Although mainstream criticism of Citizens United was fierce and widely publicized, a lesser known response to the case is a grassroots popular movement calling for an amendment to the Constitution establishing that money is not speech and that human beings, not corporations, are …