scholarly journals Zarys historii regulacji finansowania kampanii wyborczych w USA

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.

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...


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.


2018 ◽  
Vol 43 (02) ◽  
pp. 319-359 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ann Southworth

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.


Author(s):  
Robert G. Boatright

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.


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.


2018 ◽  
Vol 47 (5) ◽  
pp. 1000-1035
Author(s):  
Ben Gaskins ◽  
Ellen Seljan ◽  
Todd Lochner ◽  
Katie Kowal ◽  
Zane Dundon ◽  
...  

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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document