First Amendment Commons^™

(At Least) Thirteen Ways Of Looking At Election Lies, Helen Norton

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

Free Speech And Domain Allocation: A Suggested Framework For Analyzing The Constitutionality Of Prohibition Of Lies, James Weinstein

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

Forward Into The Past: Speech Intermediaries In The Television And Internet Ages, Gregory P. Magarian

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

Suing The President For First Amendment Violations, Sonja R. West

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

Is It Bad Law To Believe A Politician? Campaign Speech And Discriminatory Intent, Shawn E. Fields

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Taking The States' Congressional Delegations Seriously: A Twelfth Amendment And First Amendment Approach To Identifying The Worst Gerrymanders, Jamin B. Raskin

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

No abstract provided.

Corporations As Conduits: A Cautionary Note About Regulating Hypotheticals, Douglas M. Spencer

Publications

No abstract provided.

(At Least) Thirteen Ways Of Looking At Election Lies, Helen Norton

Publications

Lies take many forms. Because lies vary so greatly in their motivations and consequences (among many other qualities), philosophers have long sought to catalog them to help make sense of their diversity and complexity. Legal scholars too have classified lies in various ways to explain why we punish some and protect others. This symposium essay offers yet another taxonomy of lies, focusing specifically on election lies — that is, lies told during or about elections. We can divide and describe election lies in a wide variety of ways: by speaker, by motive, by subject matter, by audience, by means of …

The Supreme Court, Judicial Elections, And Dark Money, Richard Briffault

Faculty Scholarship

Judges, even when popularly elected, are not representatives; they are not agents for their voters, nor should they take voter preferences into account in adjudicating cases. However, popularly elected judges are representatives for some election law purposes. Unlike other elected officials, judges are not politicians. But judges are policy-makers. Judicial elections are subject to the same constitutional doctrines that govern voting on legislators, executives, and ballot propositions. Except when they are not. The same First Amendment doctrine that protects campaign speech in legislative, executive, and ballot proposition elections applies to campaign speech in judicial elections – but not in quite …

The Boundaries Of Partisan Gerrymandering, John M. Greabe

Law Faculty Scholarship

[Excerpt] “In my most recent column, I expressed concern about the effectiveness of the constitutional decision rules that currently govern gerrymandering – the redrawing of electoral districts in a manner that favors the incumbent majority at the expense of those out of power.

Briefly, the Constitution has not been interpreted to prohibit redistricting with an eye toward advancing the interests of the political party in power. But it has been interpreted to bar legislators from redistricting on racial grounds – at least in most circumstances.

The problem is that voters from certain racial groups tend to vote overwhelmingly for …

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 …

The Corporation In The Marketplace Of Ideas, 51 J. Marshall L. Rev. 19 (2017), Matthew Telleen

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Institutional Case For Partisan Gerrymandering Claims, G. Michael Parsons

Cardozo Law Review de•novo

For voters hoping the Supreme Court’s 2017 Term brings relief from partisan gerrymandering, the end of the 2016 Term was inauspicious. In Cooper v. Harris, the majority assumed the legitimacy of “partisan advantage” arguments while the dissent—including Justice Kennedy—warned about the “serious institutional and federalism implications” of judicial intervention in the redistricting process. If past is prologue, this concern for institutional and structural interests does not bode well.

Free Speech Matters: The Roberts Court And The First Amendment, Joel M. Gora

Journal of Law and Policy

This article contends that the Roberts Court, in the period from 2006 to 2016, arguably became the most speech-protective Supreme Court in memory. In a series of wide-ranging First Amendment decisions, the Court sounded and strengthened classic free speech themes and principles. Taken together, the Roberts Court’s decisions have left free speech rights much stronger than they were found.

Those themes and principles include a strong libertarian distrust of government regulation of speech and presumption in favor of letting people control speech, a consistent refusal to fashion new “non-speech” categories, a reluctance to “balance” free speech away against governmental interests, …

Introduction; The Past, Present And Future Of Free Speech, Joel M. Gora

Journal of Law and Policy

This short paper introduces the papers and commentary produced at two significant First Amendment occasions. First was a 40^th anniversary celebration of the Supreme Court’s landmark 1976 decision in Buckley v. Valeo, the fountainhead ruling on the intersection between campaign finance restrictions and First Amendment rights. The questions were discussed provocatively by two of the leading players in that decision, James Buckley himself, now a retired United States Circuit Judge, and Ira Glasser, former head of the ACLU who helped organize a strange bedfellows, left-right coalition to challenge the new federal election campaign laws on First Amendment grounds. …

Money And Speech: Practical Perspectives, Nicholas W. Allard

Journal of Law and Policy

Dean Allard provides a practical perspective on the topic of money, politics and free speech based on his over three decades worth of experience in lobbying, campaigns and public policy. Commentary also includes opinions as to the state of politics in America and the problems with reforming campaign finance law.

But First, (Don’T) Let Me Take A Selfie: New Hampshire’S Ban On Ballot Selfies And First Amendment Scrutiny, Emily Wagman

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Will The Real Candidate Please Stand Up?: Political Parody On The Internet, Jon H. Oram

Journal of Intellectual Property Law

No abstract provided.

A National Model Faces New Challenges: The New York City Campaign Finance System And The 2013 Elections, Janos Marton

Fordham Urban Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Empowering Small Donors: New York City’S Multiple Match Public Financing As A Model For A Post-Citizens United World, Amy Loprest, Bethany Perskie

Fordham Urban Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Dark Money Rises: Federal And State Attempts To Rein In Undisclosed Campaign-Related Spending, Kristy Eagan

Fordham Urban Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Campaign Finance Advisory Opinions At The State Level, Allen Dickerson, Zac Morgan

Fordham Urban Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Introduction, Martin E. Connor

Fordham Urban Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Public’S Right To Know Versus Compelled Speech: What Does Social Science Research Tell Us About The Benefits And Costs Of Campaign Finance Disclosure In Non-Candidate Elections?, Dick Carpenter, Jeffrey Milyo

Fordham Urban Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Saving Democracy: A Blueprint For Reform In The Post-Citizens United Era, Jocelyn Benson

Fordham Urban Law Journal

Since the founding of our democracy, attempts to curb the influence of money in the political process consistently fall short of their goal. In fact, a growing number of cynics see campaign finance reform—or any effort to reduce the impact of money in the political process—as inherently doomed to fail. With the recent dearth of meaningful campaign finance reform on the federal level in the post-Citizens United era, reform advocates must look to the states to explore and enact changes to the law that will promote a healthier role for money in politics. This Article reviews efforts to reform government …

Neutral Principles And Some Campaign Finance Problems, John O. Mcginnis

William & Mary Law Review

This Article has both positive and normative objectives. As a positive matter, it shows that the Roberts Court’s campaign finance regulation jurisprudence can be best explained as a systematic effort to integrate that case law with the rest of the First Amendment, making the neutral principles refined in other social contexts govern this more politically salient one as well. It demonstrates that the typical Roberts Court majority in campaign finance cases follows precedent, doctrine, and traditional First Amendment theory, while the dissents tend to carve out exceptions at each of these levels.

As a normative matter, it argues that following …

A First Amendment Right To Observe Elections: Fulfilling The Dream Of Richmond Newspapers By Extending It To The Polling Place, Andrew D. Howell

Catholic University Law Review

The First Amendment has long been held to protect the right of citizens to gather information. In 1980, the Supreme Court articulated a two-pronged test in Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia, which examined both the “experience” and “logic” of granting public access to criminal trials. The jurisprudence of lower courts has since extended this qualified First Amendment presumptive right of access to civil trial and administrative hearings. This Comment examines the extension of this constitutional test to the governmental process at work at polling places. This Comment argues that the public, via the powerful vehicle of the press, ultimately meets …

Voting Is Association, Daniel P. Tokaji

Florida State University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Politics At Work After Citizens United, Ruben J. Garcia

Scholarly Works

There are seismic changes going on in the political system. The United States Supreme Court has constitutionalized the concentration of political power in the "one percent" in several recent decisions, including Citizens United v. FEC. At the same time, unions are representing a shrinking share of the workforce, and their political power is also being diminished. In order for unions to recalibrate the balance of political power at all, they must collaborate with grassroots community groups, as they have done in several recent campaigns. There are, however, various legal structures that make coordination between unions and nonunion groups difficult, …

Making Corporate Law More Communitarian: A Proposed Response To The Roberts Court's Personification Of Corporations, Robert M. Ackerman, Lance Cole

Brooklyn Law Review

Both Citizens United and Hobby Lobby are notable for the Roberts Court’s personification of the corporation. In Citizens United, the United States Supreme Court expanded corporate speech rights in a political context; in Hobby Lobby, it accorded religious rights to corporations in an unprecedented manner. This article explains how the Court’s expansion of corporate personification has ignored both traditional corporate law doctrine regarding shareholder primacy and the fundamental distinction in corporate law between the corporate entity and the shareholders who control it.

The article takes a communitarian approach to corporate law analysis, recognizing that corporations play useful roles …