ANTI-CORRUPTION IN AMERICAN HISTORY

2015 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 441-454 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard L. McCormick
Keyword(s):  
First Amendment ◽  
Public Life ◽  
Revolving Door ◽  
Campaign Contributions ◽  
Political Candidates ◽  
Citizens United ◽  
Federal Election Commission ◽  
Political Outcomes ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Election Commission

What will it take to get Americans to do something about political corruption? I mean the deep corruption of politics and policy now caused by massive campaign contributions, by lobbyists who bundle those contributions for political candidates and then influence the policy decisions of elected officials, by the revolving door between public office and lucrative private employment, and—through all these instruments and more—by the influence of wealthy individuals and interests over the agencies and institutions of government. Some people say this is just American politics as usual: money is inevitable in public life, and anyway it's all perfectly legal. Sadly, those who say this are, at this moment, winning the argument. Writing for the Supreme Court majority in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010), Justice Anthony Kennedy opined, “It is well understood that a substantial and legitimate reason, if not the only reason, to cast a vote for, or to make a contribution to, one candidate over another is that the candidate will respond by producing those political outcomes the supporter favors. Democracy is premised on responsiveness.” Cementing the case, says the Court, is the First Amendment, which protects political speech and political dollars.

Disclosure and the Federal Election Commission

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert E. Mutch
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Election Campaigns ◽  
Federal Election ◽  
Citizens United ◽  
Federal Election Commission ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
Election Commission

The point of disclosure is to let voters see who is financing election campaigns. That was why the Supreme Court upheld the disclosure law in Buckley v. Valeo and Citizens United, and that was the purpose of the law when...

Corporations as Speakers

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Randall P. Bezanson
Keyword(s):  
First Amendment ◽  
General Rule ◽  
General Question ◽  
Citizens United ◽  
Virtual Absence ◽  
Federal Election Commission ◽  
Corporate Speech ◽  
Oral Argument ◽  
Election Commission ◽  
Constitutional Analysis

This chapter examines the justices' views and the reasoning behind Supreme Court's 5–4 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. It does so through a review of the second oral argument before the Court and an analysis of the Court's opinion. After the Court had first heard oral argument in 2009, it scheduled a second argument and instructed the parties to brief and argue the general question of the constitutional status of corporate speech. The Court had ruled in prior cases that much corporate speech was protected by the First Amendment, but as a general rule the protection afforded such speech was weak and limited. After taking full stock of the Court's decision, and in light of the virtual absence of serious constitutional analysis of the core question of the First Amendment's meaning, the chapter then steps back and considers from a fresh and broader perspective whether corporations should be fully protected speakers under the First Amendment, drawing on the Constitution's text, its history, and the structural, philosophical, and practical considerations that bear on this central question.

scholarly journals Citizens United y la financiación de las campañas electorales en el derecho norteamericano

2012 ◽  
pp. 433
Author(s):  
Ana Valero Heredia
Keyword(s):  
Political Parties ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
First Amendment ◽  
Election Campaigns ◽  
Federal Election ◽  
Citizens United ◽  
Federal Election Commission ◽  
Chamber Of Commerce ◽  
Election Commission ◽  
The U.S

Con la sentencia de la Corte Suprema norteamericana, pronunciada en el Caso Citizens United v. Federal Electoral Commission, de febrero de 2010, el Tribunal Supremo Norteamericano ha revocado un fallo que desde hacía veinte años imponía límites y restringía la capacidad de las empresas y los sindicatos para financiar las campañas electorales de los partidos políticos en las elecciones federales. Esta reñidísima decisión del Supremo intérprete de la Constitución estadounidense, ha supuesto una auténtica convulsión en materian electoral en los Estados Unidos pues anula el fallo emitido veinte años atrás en el Caso Austin v. Cámara de Comercio de Michigan, según el cual, las empresas podían ver limitado el uso de sus fondos con fines políticos para evitar los riesgos de corrupción.Citizens ofrece una visión absolutista de la Primera Enmienda de la Constitución que permite a las empresas gastar sumas ilimitadas de dinero de manera independiente para apoyar u oponerse a candidatos para el cargo, dando carta blanca a la desregularización de la financiación de las campañas electorales y permitiendo a las contribuciones opacas de las empresas sin límite de ningún tipo.With the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court, pronounced in the case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, February 2010, the American Supreme Court has overturned a ruling that for twenty years imposed limits and restricted the ability of firms and unions to finance the election campaigns of political parties in federal elections. This decision of the Supreme interpreter of the U.S. Constitution was a radical upheaval in the U.S. election as the ruling nullifies twenty years ago in Austin v Case. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, according to which companies could have limited the use of their funds for political purposes to avoid the risks of corruption. Citizens offers an absolutist view of the First Amendment of the Constitution that allows companies to spend unlimited amounts of money independently to support or oppose candidates for office, giving carte blanche to the deregulation of the financing of election campaigns and allowing contributions opaque firms without any limit.

scholarly journals Zarys historii regulacji finansowania kampanii wyborczych w USA

2011 ◽  
pp. 203-221 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jan Misiuna
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Campaign Finance ◽  
Federal Election ◽  
Citizens United ◽  
Federal Election Commission ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Us ◽  
History Of ◽  
Campaign Finance Law ◽  
Election Commission

The article presents the history of the US campaign finance law. It describes acts passed by the Congress, starting from the Tillman Act of 1907, followed among others by Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 and finished with McCain-Feingold Act of 2002. There are also described the most important decisions of the US Supreme Court related to the campaign finance including Newberry vs. United States (256 U. S. 232 (1921)), Buckley v. Valeo (424 U. S. 1 (1976)), McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (540 U. S. 93 (2003)) Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (130 S. Ct. 876 (2010)) of 2010. The paper also how has changed the attitude of the Supreme Court towards campaign finance regulation The article also recalls the historical events, such as Teapot Dome Scandal and Watergate, that were important stimuli for passing new law by the Congress. The background of the Supreme Court decisions is also provided.

From the FEC to the Ballot Box: Voter Accountability for Campaign Finance Law Violations

2018 ◽  
Vol 47 (5) ◽  
pp. 1000-1035
Author(s):  
Ben Gaskins ◽  
Ellen Seljan ◽  
Todd Lochner ◽  
Katie Kowal ◽  
Zane Dundon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Media Coverage ◽  
Campaign Finance ◽  
Political Candidates ◽  
Federal Election Commission ◽  
High Profile ◽  
Finance Law ◽  
The Media ◽  
Campaign Finance Laws ◽  
Campaign Finance Law ◽  
Election Commission

Scholarship suggests the Federal Election Commission lacks adequate enforcement tools to deter those who would violate campaign finance laws. But can and do voters hold political candidates accountable for violating these laws? In this article, we employ two studies to empirically evaluate these questions. The first examines the extent to which media cover campaign finance violations, and how they do so. The second employs an experimental approach to test the effects of such media coverage on evaluations of political candidates, in particular whether knowledge of a candidate’s violation of campaign finance laws erodes voter support. We find that the media are more likely to cover campaign finance impropriety for high-profile offices, when criminal action is alleged, and for most serious violations. We also show that voters care about campaign violations, and certain violations lower voter support similar to other types of political scandal.

Managed Health Care Companies' Lobbying Frenzy

1995 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 403-410 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nancy Watzman ◽  
Patrick Woodall
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Managed Care ◽  
Campaign Contributions ◽  
Insurance Companies ◽  
Trade Associations ◽  
Federal Election ◽  
Federal Election Commission ◽  
Congressional Committees ◽  
Managed Health Care ◽  
Election Commission

The top dozen national managed health care companies and two industry trade groups spent at least $2,023,041 on lobbying expenses and campaign contributions to key lawmakers during last year's health care debate, according to an analysis of Federal Election Commission data and federal lobbying disclosure forms. Five of the top six spenders are large insurance companies that are rapidly transferring their business from traditional indemnity insurance to HMOs. Over half—52 percent—of campaign donations from the top managed care companies' and trade associations' PACs and employees went to members sitting on the five Congressional committees with jurisdiction over health care reform.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document