Law Commons^™

Corporations "Pac" A Punch: Corporate Involvement's Influence In Elections And A Proposal For Public Campaign Financing In Ohio, Taylor Hagen

Cleveland State Law Review

In 2010, the United States Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision ruled that limiting corporate spending in elections violates the First Amendment right to free speech. With this decision, the Supreme Court overturned election spending restrictions that dated back more than a century. Before Citizens United v. FEC was decided, the Court had previously held that these restrictions were permissible because there is a governmental interest in preventing election and campaign corruption. Now, corporations may expend unlimited funds for outside election spending, to super PACs, and may even establish their own PACs. Increased corporate involvement in elections has deteriorated American …

A New Frontier In Campaign Finance Regulation, John M. Greabe

Law Faculty Scholarship

In recent years, the United States Supreme Court has taken what many regard as a doctrinaire approach to campaign finance regulation. It has seized on the indisputable proposition that limits on campaign expenditures and contributions implicate important First Amendment values and, pressing the proposition to logical extremes, invalidated a number of federal and state laws that had imposed such limits.

This newspaper editorial discusses recently proposed legislation in the state of New Hampshire that would collect fees on expenditures made by individual political candidates, PACs, and Super PACS. The collected fees would be used to help the state justice department …

What Is A Tragedy Of The Commons? Overfishing And The Campaign Spending Problem, Shi-Ling Hsu

Scholarly Publications

No abstract provided.

Hybridizing Citizenship, Kathryn Abrams

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Constitutional Basis For A Ban On Soft Money, Daniel M. Yarmish

Fordham Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Political Philosophy Of Campaign Finance Reform As Articulated In The Dissents In Austin V. Michigan Chamber Of Commerce., John S. Shockley, David A. Schultz

St. Mary's Law Journal

The 1992 presidential candidacy of Jerry Brown, who called for campaign contribution limits, has reignited the issue of campaign finance reform. Indeed, the United States Supreme Court has recognized the importance of campaign finance reform as a judicial issue. The importance of this issue is marked by the Court’s continued willingness to address the regulation of campaign finance since the 1976 landmark case of Buckley v. Valeo. The case of Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce emphasized the somewhat confused nature of the Supreme Court’s campaign finance reform decisions. The Supreme Court and state legislatures will likely continue to address …

Pacs In Kentucky: Regulating The Permanent Committees, John R. Hays

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Issues In The Regulation Of The Financing Of Election Campaigns, Archibald Cox

Cleveland State Law Review

The decisions sustaining campaign expenditures by corporations and organized groups are libertarian in the superficial sense that they sustain claims under the first amendment. Their effect, however, is to increase the influence of organized groups, especially of groups with access to money, and to diminish the voice of the individual. If liberty means the opportunity of the individual man or woman to express himself or herself in a society in which ideas are judged principally by their merit, increasing the relative influence of organizations and shrinking the attention paid to individual voices means a net loss of human freedom.