Jurisprudence & Litigation

State Aggregate Limits and Proportional Bans under McCutcheon

State Aggregate Limits and Proportional Bans under McCutcheon Likely Unconstitutional or Highly Vulnerable By Matt Nese Please note:  This report has been updated to reflect state responses to the Supreme Court’s McCutcheon decision. On April 2, 2014, the Supreme Court issued its decision in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, which invalidated the federal aggregate limit […]

Filed Under: Contribution Limits, Contribution Limits, Contribution Limits Federal, Contribution Limits Handouts, Contribution Limits State, Contributions & Limits, External Relations Sub-Pages, Political Parties, Research, State, State Press Releases and Blogs, aggregate limits, Base Contribution Limits, Center for Competitive Politics, District of Columbia, First Amendment, Matt Nese, McCutcheon v FEC, Quid Pro Quo, Shaun McCutcheon, Contribution Limits, Jurisprudence & Litigation, Contributions & Limits, Jurisprudence & Litigation, Political Parties, Alaska, Arizona, 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

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

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

Donor Disclosure: Undermining the First Amendment

In this essay, Cleta Mitchell, partner in the Washington, D.C. office of Foley & Lardner LLP and a member of the firm’s Political Law Practice, examines campaign finance disclosure both as a policy and as a response to the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. FEC, which freed corporations, labor unions, and trade […]

Filed Under: Disclosure, Disclosure, Disclosure, Disclosure State, External Relations Sub-Pages, First Amendment, Independent Speech, Jurisprudence & Litigation, Research, campaign finance disclosure, campaign finance reform, Center for Competitive Politics, Citizens United v. FEC, Cleta Mitchell, Donor Disclosure, Foly & Lardner, money in politics, Disclosure, First Amendment, Independent Speech, Jurisprudence & Litigation, Disclosure, First Amendment, Independent Speech, Jurisprudence & Litigation, Minnesota

Assessing the Potential Effects of Citizens United: Evidence from the States

Critics of the Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling in Citizens United argued it would lead to a flood of corporate and union cash that would warp electoral and policy outcomes. In this August 2012 paper, John Coleman and Timothy Werner test these claims by examining various campaign finance laws at the state level from 1977 through […]

Filed Under: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, Independent Speech, Issue Advocacy, Issues, Jurisprudence & Litigation, Research, Independent Speech, Issue Advocacy, Jurisprudence & Litigation, Independent Speech, Issue Advocacy, Jurisprudence & Litigation