scholarly journals The Federal Election Commission, The First Amendment, and Due Process

1980 ◽  
Vol 89 (6) ◽  
pp. 1199 ◽  
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.


1987 ◽  
Vol 53 ◽  
pp. 14-15
Author(s):  
Clyde Wilcox

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.


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...


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document