Elements of the Support Structure for Campaign Finance Litigation in the Roberts Court

2018 ◽  
Vol 43 (02) ◽  
pp. 319-359 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ann Southworth
Keyword(s):  
Campaign Finance ◽  
Support Structures ◽  
Support Structure ◽  
Federal Election ◽  
Citizens United ◽  
Federal Election Commission ◽  
Case Selection ◽  
Roberts Court ◽  
Election Commission

This article considers the organizations, financial patrons, and lawyers involved in two significant campaign finance cases decided by the Roberts Court: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission. The research indicates that these elements of the support structures for litigation on both sides of these cases, like the justices to whom they direct their advocacy, fall into well-defined opposing and partisan camps. It also suggests that strategic case selection on the challengers' side, the diversity of organizations supporting their positions, their network and coordination, and a simple and powerful frame around which to rally may have contributed to their success and to the Roberts Court's fundamental reshaping of campaign finance doctrine.

scholarly journals Campaign Finance in the Era of Super-PACS

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert G. Boatright
Keyword(s):  
Campaign Finance ◽  
Public Attitudes ◽  
Political Campaigns ◽  
Federal Election ◽  
Citizens United ◽  
Political Advertisements ◽  
Federal Election Commission ◽  
Super Pacs ◽  
American Tradition ◽  
Election Commission

The regulations concerning how American political campaigns are financed have changed dramatically over the past decade. The US Supreme Court’s Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision (2010) removed restrictions on corporate and labor spending on elections. A subsequent decision in American Tradition Partnership v. Bullock held that the ruling also applied to state elections. The Supreme Court’s decision ultimately led to the establishment of “super PACs” as a result of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals opinion in SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission, which held that political committees that only spend money independently in support of candidates are not subject to federal contribution limits but must comply with disclosure rules. Super PACs were thus permitted to use unlimited contributions to finance independent advocacy spending. While super PACs cannot give money directly to candidates or directly coordinate their efforts with candidates or parties, within a short amount of time they developed the ability to come quite close to serving as parallel campaign organizations. Not coincidentally, total spending on presidential and congressional elections increased substantially in the election cycles following the decision. The Citizens United decision did not merely increase spending in these elections, however; it shifted the balance in spending away from candidates and parties and toward groups. This prompted a variety of changes, as well, in the content of political advertisements; in public attitudes toward campaign finance; and in the ability of citizens to know the sources of campaign money. However, not all changes in campaign finance were a consequence of the Citizens United decision; candidate fundraising practices, advertising strategies, communication techniques, and many other activities related to the campaign finance system are constantly evolving. This literature review focuses on the origins of the Citizens United decision, ways in which we might measure its consequences for campaign spending, and the broader consequences for American democracy of campaign finance laws and practices.

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.

Teaching Campaign Finance with Federal Election Commission Resources

1987 ◽  
Vol 53 ◽  
pp. 14-15
Author(s):  
Clyde Wilcox
Keyword(s):  
Interest Groups ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Campaign Finance ◽  
Public Office ◽  
Federal Election ◽  
Science Courses ◽  
Federal Election Commission ◽  
Campaigns And Elections ◽  
Student Projects ◽  
Election Commission

Many Political Science courses include sections on campaign finance activity. Courses on Congress and on the Presidency may include sections on the financing of elections for these offices, and courses on campaigns and elections will probably cover campaign finance. In addition, courses on interest groups and on parties may include sections that focus on the activities of these actors in financing campaigns for public office.The Federal Election Commission can provide an assortment of materials that may be useful in teaching about campaign finance. Some of these materials are most useful as sources of data for lecture preparation, while other offerings can be used as part of student projects or papers. In the sections below, these materials will be described, and some classroom uses will be suggested.

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...

Campaign Finance

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert E. Mutch
Keyword(s):  
Political Theory ◽  
Campaign Finance ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Federal Election ◽  
Federal Election Commission ◽  
Super Pacs ◽  
The One ◽  
Election Commission

The one percent has been providing an ever larger share of campaign funds since the 1980s. Well over half of the money contributed to the presidential race in 2015 came from only about 350 families. One-fourth of it came from just seventy-eight donors, all of whom made contributions of $1 million or more. Can we still say we live in a democracy if a few hundred rich families provide such disproportionate shares of campaign funds? Congress and the courts are divided on that question, with conservatives saying yes and liberals saying no. The debate is about the most fundamental of political questions: how we define democracy, and how we want our democracy to work. The debate may ultimately be about political theory, but in practice it is conducted in terms of laws, regulations, and court decisions about PACs, super PACs, 527s, 501(c)(4)s, dark money, the Federal Election Commission, and even the IRS. This book explains how those laws, regulations, and court decisions fit into the larger debate about how we want our democracy to work.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document