Ned Lamont’s primary victory over Joe Lieberman exposes the ways in which our campaign finance laws distort the political choices available to Americans and hinder political competition.
North Carolina Governor Mike Easley has been busy. On July 23, 2006, he signed into law H.B. 1845, which prohibits the personal use of contributions by candidates and campaign committees. Andrew Ballard, “N.C. Gov. Signs Law Restricting Use of Campaign Contributions,” BNA Money & Politics Report, July 26, 2006. On August 4, he signed H.B. 1843, which prohibits lobbyists from making campaign contributions to legislators or public servants. Andrew Ballard, “New N.C. Lobbying Restrictions Signed Into Law by Governor,” BNA Money & Politics Report, August 7, 2006. In an era of Abramoff investigation into already illegal activity and its concomitant legislative proposals for further “reform,” it is worth mentioning an oft unnoticed contradiction represented in Governor Easley’s recent enactments.
To read more, click on the title above.
Bob Bauer asks what silence says about the reform agenda in the San Juan County Radio Jockeys Case and mentions CCP along the way.
The Per Curiam Opinion of Steel: Buckley v. Valeo as Superprecedent? Clues from Wisconsin and Vermont
Randall v. Sorrell and Wisconsin Right to Life v. FEC brought before the Supreme Court a variety of campaign finance regulations, from contribution limits and expenditure limits to restrictions on incorporated entities. Despite expressions of discomfort by many Justices with the way modern campaign finance is regulated, the Court declined to rework Buckley v. Valeo‘s […]
Filed Under: Contributions & Limits, Issue Advocacy, Jurisprudence & Litigation, Research, Buckley v. Valeo, Randall v. Sorrell, Wisconsin Right to Life v. FEC, Contribution Limits, Issue Advocacy, Jurisprudence & Litigation, Contributions & Limits, Issue Advocacy, Jurisprudence & Litigation, Vermont, Wisconsin
The decline of political efficacy and trust in the United States is often linked to the rise of money in politics. Both the courts and reform advocates justify restrictions on campaign donations and spending as necessary for the improvement of links between the government and the governed.
Filed Under: Contribution Limits, Contribution Limits, Contributions & Limits, Disclosure, Disclosure, Research, Contribution limits, Disclosure, milyo, primo, Contribution Limits, Disclosure, Contributions & Limits, Disclosure
Scholars have proposed many routes by which campaign finance laws may impact turnout. For instance, laws restricting campaign spending may decrease mobilization, resulting in lower turnout. Alternatively, such laws might increase the competitiveness of elections, resulting in higher turnout.