Disclosure and the Federal Election Commission

Author(s):  
Robert E. Mutch

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...

Author(s):  
Ana Valero Heredia

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.


Author(s):  
Jan Misiuna

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.


2010 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen A. Yoder

Few recent decisions of the United States Supreme Court have created quite the stir as did Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. One reason the opinion had such an effect is that it contains a smorgasbord of business-related legal and political issues, including issues relating to election law, ethics, social responsibility, stare decisis, judicial review, selection of Supreme Court Justices, the definition of free speech, and corporate “personhood” for purposes of the First Amendment. Perhaps surprising for a case involving a lawsuit brought by a nonprofit public advocacy organization against the federal agency charged with enforcing federal election laws, the opinion also ventures into one of the most important current issues in corporate governance, the role of shareholders in the business and affairs of a corporation.


Díkaion ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 373-399
Author(s):  
Héctor Jiménez Esclusa

En este artículo se estudia la sentencia Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (Ciudadanos Unidos contra la Comisión de Elecciones Federales), dictada por la Corte Suprema de Estados Unidos como mecanismo de legalización de la influencia irrestricta del financiamiento privado en la política estadounidense. La hipótesis aquí es que esta modificación institucional legaliza, a su vez, una forma de corrupción política que se evidencia en la actual legislación restrictiva del voto. Se presentará un marco referencial en el que se definirán los conceptos que articulan el análisis. Luego, se hará una descripción de los antecedentes y el contexto de la sentencia Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission; en seguida, se realizará un análisis de la sentencia, para pasar luego al repaso de dos de sus consecuencias: la primera es la influencia del dinero negro (donaciones anónimas) tanto en las campañas como en la selección de jueces, y la siguiente es la exposición de la influencia del financiamiento privado ilimitado de las campañas en la legislación restrictiva actual del voto.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document