Independent Speech

Amending the First Amendment: The Udall Proposal is Poorly Drafted, Intellectually Unserious, and Extremely Dangerous to Free Speech

The Senate Judiciary Committee will soon hold a hearing on S.J. Res. 19, a constitutional amendment to restrict First Amendment rights proposed by Senator Tom Udall (D-NM) and sponsored by 41 other senators. Senate Democratic leaders have indicated they plan to bring the measure to a vote on the Senate floor. This analysis examines the […]

Filed Under: Amending Press Release/In the News/Blog, Amending the Constitution, Blog, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, Contribution Limits, Contribution Limits Federal, Contribution Limits State, Contributions & Limits, External Relations Sub-Pages, First Amendment, Handouts (Contribution Limits), Independent Speech, Issues, Money in Politics, Research, Contribution Limits, First Amendment, Independent Speech, Contributions & Limits, First Amendment, Independent Speech

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

In Defense of “Super PAC’s” and of the First Amendment

In this article, CCP Academic Advisor and Brooklyn Law School Professor Joel Gora offers a defense of “Super PACs” and of the First Amendment principles that they embody; namely, that in order to make our democracy work, we need a robust, wide-open and uninhibited discussion of politics and government. Although Super PACs have gotten bad […]

Filed Under: First Amendment, Independent Speech, Research, Super PACs, Academic Advisory Board, ACLU, Brooklyn Law School, Buckley v. Valeo, campaign finance, campaign finance reform, Center for Competitive Politics, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, First Amendment, free speech, independent expenditure, independent speech, independent spending, Joel Gora, money in politics, SpeechNow.org v. FEC, super PACs, First Amendment, Independent Speech, First Amendment, Independent Speech

Richer Parties, Better Politics? Party-Centered Campaign Finance Laws and American Democracy

Campaign finance laws effect how money is channeled through organizations to influence elections. In contrast to most other democracies, American campaign finance laws have been designed to be “candidate-centered” with relatively weak political parties. Additionally, recent trends have seen independent forms of speech such as political action committees (PACs) and Super PACs become much more […]

Filed Under: Contributions & Limits, Jurisprudence & Litigation, Political Committees & 527s, Political Parties, Research, campaign contributions, campaign finance, campaign finance reform, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, money in politics, Political Parties, Raymond La Raja, super PACs, Contribution Limits, Independent Speech, Political Committees & 527s, Contributions & Limits, Independent Speech, Political Committees & 527s, Political Parties

Public Election Funding: An Assessment of What We Would Like to Know

The implementation and expansion of tax-financed campaign programs in a few states and municipalities around the U.S. over the past decade raised the specter of significant changes in the financing of campaigns at the state and local level. Tax-financing advocates claimed that these programs would increase electoral competition, reduce the influence of campaign contributors and […]

Filed Under: External Relations Sub-Pages, Independent Speech, Jurisprudence & Litigation, Research, Tax Financed Campaigns Research, Tax-Financing, Taxpayer Financed Campaigns, Arizona, Arizona Free Enterprise PAC v. Bennett, campaign finance reform, clean elections, Connecticut, independent spending, Kenneth Mayer, maine, money in politics, New York City, public financing, rescue funds, taxpayer-financed campaigns, Independent Speech, Jurisprudence & Litigation, Independent Speech, Jurisprudence & Litigation, Taxpayer Financed Campaigns, Arizona, Connecticut, Maine

'Super PACs' and the Role of 'Coordination' in Campaign Finance Law

In the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. FEC, the Court struck down a federal ban on independent expenditures in political campaigns by corporations. The Court held that independent spending could not create the type of “corruption” that the Court has recognized as a compelling government interest sufficient to overcome the intrusion of […]

Filed Under: Coordination, External Relations Sub-Pages, First Amendment, Independent Speech, Issues, Jurisprudence & Litigation, Research, Super PACs, Super PACs, Bradley A. Smith, Buckley v. Valeo, Center for Competitive Politics, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, coordination, corruption, money in politics, SpeechNow.org, super PACs, Supreme Court, Willamette Law Review, Coordination, First Amendment, Independent Speech, Jurisprudence & Litigation, Coordination, First Amendment, Independent Speech, Jurisprudence & Litigation

Free Speech, Fair Elections, and Campaign Finance Laws: Can They Co-Exist?

A prominent politician once observed that, “You can either have free speech or fair elections, but you can’t have both.” In this article, CCP Academic Advisor and Professor of Law at Brooklyn Law School Joel M. Gora argues that saying has it all backwards. In fact, you cannot have one without the other. The election of 2012 […]

Filed Under: Contribution Limits, Contribution Limits, Contributions & Limits, Expenditure, Faulty Assumptions, First Amendment, Independent Speech, Money in Politics, Research, Super PACs, Super PACs, campaign contributions, campaign finance, Contribution limits, First Amendment, free speech, money in politics, super PACs, Contribution Limits, Faulty Assumptions, First Amendment, Independent Speech, Contributions & Limits, Faulty Assumptions, First Amendment, Independent Speech

Move to Defend: The Case against the Constitutional Amendments Seeking to Overturn Citizens United

In this essay, CCP Academic Advisor John Samples looks at the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision. It found that Congress lacked the power to prohibit independent spending on electoral speech by corporations. A later lower-court decision, SpeechNow v. Federal Election Commission, applied Citizens United to such spending and related fundraising by individuals. Concerns about the […]

Filed Under: First Amendment, Independent Speech, Issue Advocacy, Jurisprudence & Litigation, Political Committees & 527s, Research, Super PACs, First Amendment, Independent Speech, Issue Advocacy, Political Committees & 527s, First Amendment, Independent Speech, Issue Advocacy, Political Committees & 527s

Disclosure in a Post-Citizens United Real World

In this article, CCP Chairman Bradley A. Smith examines several practical and constitutional issues with campaign finance disclosure. In particular, Smith scrutinizes those policies being advocated by proponents of greater regulation of political speech in response to the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. A primary political reaction to Citizens United […]

Filed Under: Disclosure, Disclosure, Disclosure, External Relations Sub-Pages, Independent Speech, Jurisprudence & Litigation, Research, Stand By Your Ad, Bradley A. Smith, Buckley v. Valeo, campaign finance disclosure, campaign finance reform, Capital University Law School, Center for Competitive Politics, Citizens United v. FEC, Dark Money, FECA, First Amendment, independent speech, money in politics, NAACP v. Alabama, West Virginia University, Disclosure, Independent Speech, Jurisprudence & Litigation, Disclosure, Independent Speech, Jurisprudence & Litigation, Stand By Your Ad