Jurisprudence & Litigation

Eternal Inconsistency: The Stunning Variability in, and Expedient Motives Behind the Tax Regulation of Nonprofit Advocacy Groups

In this study, California election law attorney Allison Hayward analyzes the historical roots of the IRS’s recent scandals, and discusses how: The IRS scandal is just the latest in a series of clashes between the agency and nonprofit advocacy groups. Congress writes tax law to address short-term political goals, often ignoring long-term problems. Laws governing […]

Filed Under: Blog, Enforcement, First Amendment, IRS, IRS and the Tea Party, Issue Advocacy, Jurisprudence & Litigation, Research, 1954 Revenue Act, Allison Hayward, Nonprofit Advocacy, Revenue Act of 1934, Social Welfare, Tax Exemptions, Enforcement, First Amendment, Issue Advocacy, Jurisprudence & Litigation, Enforcement, First Amendment, Issue Advocacy, Jurisprudence & Litigation

Leveling the Playing Field? The Role of Public Campaign Funding in Elections

In this article by Tilman Klumpp, Hugo M. Mialon, and Michael A. Williams, the authors assess the role of public financing systems in elections. In a series of First Amendment cases, the U.S. Supreme Court established that government may regulate campaign finance, but not if such regulation imposes costs on political speech and the purpose […]

Filed Under: Jurisprudence & Litigation, Research, Tax Financed Campaigns Research, Tax-Financing, Taxpayer Financed Campaigns, Jurisprudence & Litigation, Jurisprudence & Litigation, Taxpayer Financed Campaigns, Arizona, Connecticut, Maine

Does “The Freedom of the Press” Include a Right to Anonymity? The Original Meaning

In this New York University Journal of Law and Liberty article, constitutional historian Robert G. Natelson examines relevant evidence to determine whether, as some have argued, the original legal force of the First Amendment’s “freedom of the press” clause included a per se right to anonymous authorship. The Article concludes that, except in cases in […]

Filed Under: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, Disclosure, Jurisprudence & Litigation, Press, Buckley v. Valeo, New York University Journal of Law and Liberty, Robert G. Natelson, Disclosure, Jurisprudence & Litigation, Disclosure, Jurisprudence & Litigation, Press

The Coordination Fallacy

In this symposium article draft by University of Virginia Law Professor Michael D. Gilbert and University of Virginia Law J.D. Candidate Brian Barnes, the authors examine the relationship between coordinated expenditures and corruption. Only one form of corruption, the quid pro quo, is constitutionally significant, and it has three logical elements:  (1) an actor, such […]

Filed Under: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, Coordination, Independent Speech, Jurisprudence & Litigation, Money in Politics, Coordination, Independent Speech, Jurisprudence & Litigation, Coordination, Independent Speech, Jurisprudence & Litigation

State False Statement Laws: Should the Government Act as the Truth Police?

State False Statement Laws: Should the Government Act as the Truth Police? By Matt Nese and Brennan Mancil This Issue Review discusses the seventeen states that have adopted constitutionally vulnerable “false statement” laws that unwisely put government in the business of acting as the “truth police.” Such statutes cover general speech about a candidate or […]

Filed Under: First Amendment, Jurisprudence & Litigation, Research, SBA List v. Driehaus, Brennan Mancil, Center for Competitive Politics, False Statement Laws, Matt Nese, Ohio Elections Commission, First Amendment, Jurisprudence & Litigation, Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin

Issue Analysis No. 9: Aggregate and Proportional Limits in the States: Have they Reduced Corruption or Promoted Better Government?

The Center’s ninth Issue Analysis examines the potential impact of the Supreme Court’s McCutcheon decision on the states with existing aggregate limit provisions, particularly as it relates to the effect of those provisions on both public corruption rates and how well a state is governed. For background, on April 2, 2014, the Supreme Court issued […]

Filed Under: Contribution Limits, Contribution Limits, Contribution Limits Handouts, Contribution Limits State, Contributions & Limits, External Relations Sub-Pages, Jurisprudence & Litigation, Research, State, aggregate limits, Center for Competitive Politics, Contribution limits, First Amendment, Good Governance, Matt Nese, McCutcheon v FEC, money in politics, Pew Center on the States, Public Corruption, Shaun McCutcheon, Supreme Court, Contribution Limits, Jurisprudence & Litigation, Contributions & Limits, Jurisprudence & Litigation, Alaska, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, New York, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Wisconsin, Wyoming

Publius was Not a PAC: Reconciling Anonymous Political Speech, the First Amendment, and Campaign Finance Disclosure

In this Wyoming Law Review article by Benjamin Barr and Stephen R. Klein, the authors emphasize the importance of anonymous political speech. As they explain, modern campaign finance law has eliminated many avenues for anonymous political speech in both federal and state arenas. Under today’s disclosure regimes, citizens who band together and spend as little […]

Filed Under: Disclosure, Disclosure, First Amendment, Jurisprudence & Litigation, Research, Publius, The Federalist Papers, Disclosure, First Amendment, Jurisprudence & Litigation, Disclosure, First Amendment, Jurisprudence & Litigation

Citizens United, States Divided: An Empirical Analysis of Independent Political Spending

This study examines the effect the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. FEC has on independent spending in American politics. Previous attempts to answer this question have focused solely on federal elections where there is no baseline for comparing changes in spending behavior. The authors, Douglas M. Spencer and Abby K. Wood, overcome […]

Filed Under: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, Independent Speech, Issues, Jurisprudence & Litigation, Research, Super PACs, 50 States, Abby K. Wood, Center for Competitive Politics, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, Corporate spending, Douglas M. Spencer, Independent Expenditures, Indepent Spending, Indiana Law Journal, money in politics, Supreme Court, Union spending, Independent Speech, Jurisprudence & Litigation, Independent Speech, Jurisprudence & Litigation, Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming

Reconsidering Citizens United as a Press Clause Case

In this article, Stanford Law Professor Michael McConnell argues that the central flaw in the analysis of Citizens United by both the majority and the dissent was to treat it as a free speech case rather than a free press case. According to McConnell, the right of a group to write and disseminate a documentary film criticizing […]

Filed Under: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, External Relations Sub-Pages, First Amendment, Independent Speech, Issues, Jurisprudence & Litigation, Press, Research, Center for Competitive Politics, Michael W. McConnell, Reconsidering Citizens United As A Press Clause Case, Yale Law Journal, Independent Speech, Jurisprudence & Litigation, Independent Speech, Jurisprudence & Litigation, Press

Separation of Campaign and State

In this George Washington Law Review article, Center for Competitive Politics Chairman and Founder Bradley A. Smith assesses Roberts Court jurisprudence in campaign finance cases and argues for a “separation of campaign and state” doctrine. As Smith explains, in a pair of recent decisions, Davis v. FEC and Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC […]

Filed Under: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, First Amendment, Jurisprudence & Litigation, Research, Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett, Bradley A. Smith, Davis v. FEC, FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, George Washington Law Review, Randall v. Sorrell, First Amendment, Jurisprudence & Litigation, First Amendment, Jurisprudence & Litigation