Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
The Return Of Spending Limits: Campaign Finance After Landell V. Sorrell, Richard Briffault
The Return Of Spending Limits: Campaign Finance After Landell V. Sorrell, Richard Briffault
Faculty Scholarship
On August 18, 2004, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the First Amendment, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo, does not preclude mandatory limitations on campaign expenditures.In Landell v. Sorrell, the court concluded that limitations imposed by the state of Vermont on candidate spending in state election campaigns are "supported by [the state's] compelling interests in safeguarding Vermont's democratic process from 1) the corruptive influence of excessive and unbridled fundraising and 2) the effect that perpetual fundraising has on the time of candidates and elected officials." To …
Holmes And The Marketplace Of Ideas, Vincent A. Blasi
Holmes And The Marketplace Of Ideas, Vincent A. Blasi
Faculty Scholarship
At least five basic values might be served by a robust free speech principle: (1) individual autonomy; (2) truth seeking; (3) self-government; (4) the checking of abuses of power; (5) the promotion of good character. Free speech might serve one or more of these values by functioning in at least three different ways: (1) as a privileged activity; (2) as a social mechanism; (3) as a cultural force. My contention is that the conventional understanding of the most familiar metaphor in the First Amendment lexicon, the "marketplace of ideas," has had the undesirable effect of focusing attention too much on …
Defining The Constitutional Question In Partisan Gerrymandering, Richard Briffault
Defining The Constitutional Question In Partisan Gerrymandering, Richard Briffault
Faculty Scholarship
Vieth v. Jubelirer is a significant setback to efforts to challenge partisan gerrymandering in court. Four members of the Supreme Court repudiated Davis v. Bandemer and concluded that partisan gerrymanders present a nonjusticiable question, while the fifth, Justice Kennedy, determined that the Court ought to "refrain from intervention" at this time, although he left open the hope that gerrymandering might become justiciable if the right standard of proving a gerrymander is ever found. Yet, strikingly, all nine members of the Supreme Court agreed that, justiciable or not, partisan gerrymanders do raise a constitutional question and some partisan gerrymanders are unconstitutional. …
The New Censorship: Institutional Review Boards, Philip A. Hamburger
The New Censorship: Institutional Review Boards, Philip A. Hamburger
Faculty Scholarship
Do federal regulations on Institutional Review Boards violate the First Amendment? Do these regulations establish a new sort of censorship? And what does this reveal about the role of the Supreme Court?