A Constitutional Campaign Finance Plan Free Speech & Election Law Practice Group Newsletter - Volume 2, Issue 1, Spring 1998 We take the unusual step in this issue of reprinting an article that appeared earlier in a different publication, but we think Professor McConnell’s ideas merit further attention. We say that, not necessarily because we agree with all that he says, but rather because his proposal on how to address the vexing issue of campaign finance reform is two things such proposals rarely are - provocative, and respectful of the First Amendment. And because it is provocative, we invite readers to submit for publication in our next issue reactions to Professor McConnell’s proposal. Professor McConnell, in turn, has agreed to address your responses. So please let us know your thoughts - send them by email, fax, or regular mail to either of the editors, William McGrath and Allison Hayward, or to the Federalist Society headquarters.
A Practitioner's View of Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. Federal Election Commission Free Speech & Election Law Practice Group Newsletter - Volume 1, Issue 1, Fall 1996 The Supreme Court decision in Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. Federal Election Commission may be influential despite its limited, direct impact on political party spending in federal elections. Instead, the case may be noted in the future as the "high water mark" of the Liberal Political Nanny State — the attempt to realign political and economic power by limiting the influence of money in political campaigns. That prospect is heralded by Justice Clarence Thomas' opinion (concurring in the judgment and dissenting in part) which points the way toward a principled rejection of the constitutional rationale for limitations on campaign contributions and spending, as enunciated twenty years ago in Buckley v. Valeo (1976).
A Real Contribution to the Campaign Finance Debate: A Review of James C. Miller's Monopoly Politics Free Speech & Election Law Practice Group Newsletter - Volume 3, Issue 3, Winter 2000
Andrew Siff August 20, 2009 Proponents of campaign finance regulation often argue their case in terms of the need to end "corruption", get money out of politics and reduce the influence of "special interests". Opponents of further regulation respond with arguments focusing on First Amendment jurisprudence and the partisan nature of campaign finance proposals currently before Congress. Thus far advocates for more regulation have better sound bites, but their opponents have sounder arguments. Unfortunately, many of these arguments are comprehensible only to those with a true understanding of the realities of modem politics and esoteric First Amendment concepts such as "issue advocacy", "express advocacy", and "soft money." Not many Americans understand what is entailed in running a modem political campaign. And the vast majority of legislators and reporters, who may understand the intricacies of modem campaigning, cannot get their minds around the constitutional aspects of the debate.
A Survey of Empirical Evidence Concerning Judicial Elections State Courts White Paper
In this paper, Chris W. Bonneau evaluates the arguments made by opponents of judicial elections. Focusing primarily on state supreme court elections (since that is the level of court where most studies have been conducted), though also discussing intermediate appellate courts and trial courts where appropriate, he evaluates the arguments of judicial reform advocates in light of empirical evidence. This paper presents a synthesis of the existing literature in this area, integrating the disparate findings by scholars into a single publication. [Read now!]
ABA House of Delegates Considers Policies on Religious Profiling, SLAPPs, and Campaign Finance ABA Watch August 2012
August 03, 2012
The Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities Criminal Justice Section has proposed Recommendation 116 to amend its most recent policy passed in 2008 regarding racial and ethnic profiling. The sponsors request that federal, state, local, and territorial governments enact legislation, policies, and procedures to eliminate the use of perceived or known religious affiliation when suggesting an individual is engaged in criminal activity in the absence of specific and articulable facts... [Read more!]