Election Law Commons^™

Coordination Reconsidered, Richard Briffault

Faculty Scholarship

At the heart of American campaign finance law is the distinction drawn by the Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo between contributions and expenditures. According to the Court, contributions may be limited because they pose the dangers of corruption and the appearance of corruption, but expenditures pose no such dangers and therefore may not be limited. The distinction between the two types of campaign spending turns not on the form – the fact that contributions proceed from a donor to a candidate, while expenditures involve direct efforts to influence the voters – but on whether the campaign practice implicates the …

Updating Disclosure For The New Era Of Independent Spending, Richard Briffault

Faculty Scholarship

One of the most striking developments in recent elections has been the upsurge in spending by independent committees, particularly Super PACs and 501(c) nonprofit corporations, that are not technically affiliated with specific candidates or parties but that frequently work to promote or oppose specific candidates or parties. In many elections, these committees are de facto surrogates for the candidates they are aiding. Although our disclosure laws are reasonably effective at obtaining the disclosure of the identities of donors to candidates and parties, they fail to provide effective disclosure of the identities of the donors to independent committees. The Citizens United …

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. …

Two Challenges For Campaign Finance Disclosure After Citizens United And Doe V. Reed, Richard Briffault

Faculty Scholarship

Disclosure moved front and center on the campaign finance stage in 2010. Indeed, the year just passed witnessed the emergence of not one, but two significant challenges for our disclosure laws.

2010 began with new concerns about the burdens disclosure can place on the rights of political participation and association protected by the First Amendment, with the possibility that the Supreme Court – which had become increasingly skeptical about campaign finance regulation since Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito joined the Court – might impose new restrictions on disclosure.

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 …

Election Campaigns And Democracy: A Review Of James A. Gardner, What Are Campaigns For? The Role Of Persuasion In Electoral Law And Politics, Richard Briffault

Faculty Scholarship

What are election campaigns for? Not much, according to Professor James A. Gardner – or, at least, not nearly as much as the critics of American election campaigns would have us believe. In his new book, What Are Campaigns For? The Role of Persuasion in Electoral Law and Politics, Professor Gardner contends that instead of serving as settings for extended discussion or in depth reflection concerning political beliefs, the ideal election campaign does little more than make it more likely that the voter will cast a ballot consistent with the beliefs that he or she held before the start …

Davis V. Fec: The Roberts Court's Continuing Attack On Campaign Finance Reform, Richard Briffault

Faculty Scholarship

In Davis v. FEC, decided on the last day of the October 2007 Term, a closely divided Supreme Court invalidated the so-called Millionaires' Amendment, which was a provision added to the Federal Election Campaign Act ("FECA") as part of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act ("BCRA") of 2002 to make it easier for Senate and House candidates to raise private contributions when they run against an opponent who uses a substantial amount of personal wealth to pay for his or her campaign. From the reform perspective, the loss of the Millionaires' Amendment was not of great moment. The Amendment was …

Lobbying And Campaign Finance: Separate And Together, Richard Briffault

Faculty Scholarship

The relationship between lobbying and campaign finance is complex, contested, and changing. Lobbying and campaign finance are two important forms of political activity that combine money and communication in ways that have significant implications for democratic self-government. The two practices frequently interact and reinforce each other, with individuals, organizations, and interest groups deploying both lobbyists and campaign money to advance their goals. Congress, in 2007, for the first time explicitly recognized the intersection of campaign finance and lobbying when it adopted legislation specifically regulating the campaign finance activities of lobbyists. At roughly the same time, several of the leading candidates …

Public Financing And Presidential Elections, Richard Briffault

Faculty Scholarship

In this article, legal scholar Richard Briffault traces the history of public funding of presidential elections. He analyzes the implications and prospects for the 2008 general election campaign. He also discusses the challenges facing the system of public funding, as campaign costs increase and public support wines, and possible reforms.

Wrtl Ii: The Sharpest Turn In Campaign Finance's Long And Winding Road, Richard Briffault

Faculty Scholarship

In Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. (WRTL II), a closely divided and fragmented Supreme Court, without a majority opinion, held that the First Amendment requires the creation of a sweeping as-applied exception to § 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), which extended the ban on the use of corporate and union treasury funds in federal election campaigns to “electioneering communication.” In so doing, the Court broke sharply with its 2003 decision in McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, which had, inter alia, rejected a facial challenge to the …

Can Congress Authorize The Opponents Of Self-Financed Candidates To Receive Extra-Large Contributions?, Richard Briffault

Faculty Scholarship

Is the so-called Millionaires’ Amendment, which permits federal candidates who are running against self-funded opponents to receive contributions significantly above the standard federal statutory ceiling constitutional?

Federal law caps contributions to federal candidates, but the Supreme Court has ruled that limits on how much money a candidate can contribute to his or her own campaign are unconstitutional. This case tests the 2002 Millionaires’ Amendment, which enables candidates for Congress running against self-financing opponents to obtain contributions well above the ordinary statutory ceiling and also imposes additional reporting requirements on self-funding candidates.

Decline And Fall? The Roberts Court And The Challenges To Campaign Finance Law, Richard Briffault

Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court has had a major impact on the development of campaign finance law. Court decisions have barred most expenditure limits, upheld contribution restrictions and disclosure requirements, and limited the kinds of electoral ads that can be subject to regulation. In the McConnell decision in 2003 the Court demonstrated a greater openness to campaign finance regulation when it upheld McCain-Feingold's soft money and issue advocacy restrictions. Since McConnell, however, the composition of the Court has changed, and in two decisions in the past two years, the new majority has been much more hostile to campaign finance limits. In …

Wrtl And Randall: The Roberts Court And The Unsettling Of Campaign Finance Law, Richard Briffault

Faculty Scholarship

The first term of the Roberts Court was a potentially pivotal moment in campaign finance law. The Court both broke its pattern of deference to federal and state regulations that had marked the last half-dozen years and began to take a more critical approach to campaign finance restrictions. In Randall v. Sorrell, the Court struck down a Vermont law that sought to limit expenditures and to lower contributions in state and local elections. The expenditure restriction decision was no surprise, as it essentially reaffirmed the Court's rejection of expenditure limits in Buckley v. Valeo three decades ago. But the …

Electing Delegates To A State Constitutional Convention: Some Legal And Policy Issues, Richard Briffault

Faculty Scholarship

On July 6, 2004, then-Governor James E. McGreevey signed into law a measure intended to address one of New Jersey's most contentious and explosive issues, the property tax. The law called for the creation of the Property Tax Convention Task Force (the "Task Force") to develop recommendations concerning the design of a state constitutional convention for revamping the existing property tax system. In addition to analyzing the scope, operation, and timing of a property tax convention, one of the principal tasks of the Task Force was to determine the method for the election of delegates. The New Jersey Constitution is …

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 …

Reforming Campaign Finance Reform: A Review Of Voting With Dollars, Richard Briffault

Faculty Scholarship

On March 27, 2002, President George W. Bush signed the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 ("BCRA") into law. The culmination of a six-year legislative and political struggle, BCRA works the most comprehensive change in federal campaign finance law in nearly three decades. BCRA addresses a broad range of issues, including soft money, issue-advocacy advertising, fundraising on federal property, campaign activities of foreign nationals, and penalties for violation of campaign finance laws. Enacted in the face of intense political opposition, BCRA, if it stands up in court, is a significant reform achievement.

Or is it? BCRA closely follows the main …

The Contested Right To Vote, Richard Briffault

Faculty Scholarship

For those who believe the United States is a representative democracy with a government elected by the people, the events of late 2000must have been more than a little disconcerting. In the election for our most important public office – our only truly national office – the candidate who received the most popular votes was declared the loser while his second place opponent, who had received some 540,000 fewer votes, was the winner. This result turned on the outcome in Florida, where approximately 150,000 ballots cast were found not to contain valid votes. Further, due to flaws in ballot design, …

The Future Of Reform: Campaign Finance After The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act Of 2002, Richard Briffault

Faculty Scholarship

On March 27, 2002, President George W. Bush signed the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 ("BCRA" or "the Act") into law. The culmination of a protracted six-year legislative and political struggle, BCRA is the most significant change in federal campaign finance law since the early 1970s, when the Federal Election Campaign Act ("FECA") of 1971 and FECA Amendments of 1974 were adopted. The Act addresses a broad range of campaign finance issues, including fundraising on federal property, contributions by foreign nationals, donations to the presidential inauguration committee, electronic filing and Internet access to campaign disclosure reports, and penalties for …

Public Funding And Democratic Elections, Richard Briffault

Faculty Scholarship

Our existing federal campaign finance system – the product of Watergate Era legislation and the Supreme Court's 1976 decision in Buckley v. Valeo – is in a state of disarray. The system is no longer capable of accomplishing the goals pursued by Congress and embraced by the Court a quarter-century ago: full disclosure of the sources of campaign money; limitations on large contributions by individuals; prohibitions on the use of corporate and union treasury funds; and voluntary, partial public funding, with spending limits, in the Presidential election. Indeed, the current law may actually have negative consequences, with unindexed contribution limits …

Comments On Campaign Finance Reform, Henry P. Monaghan

Faculty Scholarship

Realistically viewed, the public does not care much about campaign finance. However, the commentators and politicians involved with the campaign process care a great deal. Yet, of those who have expressed any view at all about our topic, few still believe that the existing distinction between expenditures and contributions is satisfactory.

I agree with Judge Winter's statement that, from the point of view of the speaker, the distinction between contributions and expenditures is pretty weak. This is because the choice between the two is made by a donor, who looks for the most efficient way to espouse political ideas and …

Spending Limits And The Squandering Of Candidates' Time, Vincent A. Blasi

Faculty Scholarship

Today I begin with a narrow agenda, a single idea, but an extravagant ambition. My narrow agenda is that I wish to address only the topic of campaign spending limits, and only the issue of their constitutionality in the face of First Amendment objections. The policy questions regarding whether spending limits are equitable, efficacious, and/or enforceable are deeply difficult and interesting but beyond my ken on this occasion.

My single idea is that spending limits are best justified on the ground that they protect candidates for office from having to devote an inordinate amount of their time to the task …

Who Rules At Home: One Person/One Vote And Local Governments, Richard Briffault

Faculty Scholarship

Twenty-five years ago, in Avery v Midland County, the United States Supreme Court extended the one person/one vote requirement to local governments. Avery and subsequent decisions applying federal constitutional standards to local elections suggested a change in the legal status of local governments and appeared to signal a shift in the balance of federalism. Traditionally, local governments have been conceptualized as instrumentalities of the states. Questions of local government organization and structure were reserved to the plenary discretion of the states with little federal constitutional oversight. In contrast, Avery assumed that local governments are locally representative bodies, not simply …

Distrust Of Democracy, Richard Briffault

Faculty Scholarship

The current rediscovery of state constitutions has had a singular and curious feature: it has been focused largely on state constitutional provisions that are analogous, if not identical, to provisions of the United States Constitution. Scholars and jurists have devoted their attention to state protections of speech, state equal protection clauses, state privileges against self-incrimination, and state proscriptions of cruel and unusual punishments, and have developed interpretations of these texts that diverge from those adopted by the United States Supreme Court in construing comparable federal constitutional provisions. These attempts to play state variations on federal constitutional themes have not been …