Research
CCP Recommended Reading
Have a question or issue in campaign law? Contact us and we'll try to answer you. Enter your e-mail below:
Browse Research by Category
Jurisprudence & Litigation
Rongstad v. Lassa
Published on April 12, 2007 04:10 PM
File Under: Jurisprudence & Litigation
Amici brief of Center for Competitive Politics and the Reason Foundation, urging the Supreme Court to grant certiorari
Amicus Briefs in Support of WRTL
Published on March 23, 2007
File Under: Jurisprudence & Litigation
Amicus Briefs from the AFL-CIO, Alliance for Justice, American Center for Law and Justice & Focus on the Family, a Coalition of Public Charities, Sen. Mitch McConnell, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, et al.
Shays v. FEC
Published on February 21, 2007 11:45 AM
by Paul Sherman
File Under: Jurisprudence & Litigation
Amicus brief of Center for Competitive Politics.
FreeEats.Com, Inc. v. North Dakota Amicus Brief
Published on August 29, 2006
by Steve Hoersting, Erik S. Jaffe
File Under: Jurisprudence & Litigation
San Juan County v. No New gas Tax
Published on May 9, 2006
by Center for Competitive Politics, Cato Institute and Building Industry Association of Washington In Support of Appellants
File Under: Jurisprudence & Litigation
San Juan County v. No New gas Tax
Neil Randall v. William H Sorrell
Published on December 14, 2005
by The Center for Competitive Politics
File Under: Jurisprudence & Litigation
Neil Randall v. William H Sorrell
Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. v. FEC
Published on November 14, 2005
by the Center for Competitive Politics, the Cato Institute, the Goldwater Institute, the Institute for Justice, the Reason Foundation, and the Claremont Institute Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence
File Under: Jurisprudence & Litigation
Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. v. FEC
McConnell v. Federal Election Commission: Ideology Trumps Reality, Pragmatism
Published on March 15, 2004
by Brad Smith
File Under: Jurisprudence & Litigation
Election Law Journal, Volume 3, Number 2, 2004
In this essay, [the author] tries to analyze the doctrinal strengths and weaknesses of McConnell. Instead of discussing the full contours of the opinion, [he] makes two points about the majority opinion which run counter to how it has been widely characterized. [He] hopes that calling attention to these points now will assist others in more detailed analysis. He also makes a few general predictions about the practical effects of the decision, which may also be useful as we look to see how the law works in practice.
