New Hampshire

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, 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

The National Popular Vote Proposal: A Step Away from Federalism and a Step Towards Chaos

This Policy Primer briefly reviews and summarizes five key shortcomings of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPV) and debunks the four most common myths associated with this plan for electing the President, which is quietly being signed onto in state legislatures across the country. The NPV proposal is an attempt to get states to agree [...]

Filed Under: Electoral College, Research, Center for Competitive Politics, Checks and Balances, Electoral College, Founding Fathers, National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, npv, Policy Primer, Tara Ross, Electoral College, Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District Of Columbia, 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

Election Law Handbook for Legislators and State Policymakers

The Election Law Handbook provides an informative guide to a variety of topics in campaign finance and election law likely to arise in any state legislative session. A useful tool for anyone interested in topical election law issues, in addition to original content, this Handbook suggests recommended reading for more in-depth analysis of the subjects [...]

Filed Under: Contribution Limits, Contribution Limits Handouts, Contribution Limits Research, Contribution Limits State, Contributions & Limits, Disclosure, Disclosure, Disclosure Handouts, Disclosure Research, Disclosure State, Electoral College, External Relations Sub-Pages, State, Tax-Financing, Tax-Financing Handouts, Tax-Financing Research, Tax-Financing State, Taxpayer Financed Campaigns, Contributions & Limits, Disclosure, Electoral College, Taxpayer Financed Campaigns, Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District Of Columbia, 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

Issue Analysis No. 7: Do Limits on Corporate and Union Giving to Candidates Lead to “Good” Government?

Since the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citi­zens United v. FEC, which freed corporations and labor unions to finance independent expen­ditures in support of federal candidates, the is­sue of corporate and union spending in elections has become a frequent and impassioned topic of political discussion. Most states treat limits on corporate and union giving to [...]

Filed Under: Contribution Limits, Contribution Limits Research, Contributions & Limits, External Relations Sub-Pages, Research, Big Labor, Campaign Contribution Limits, Center for Competitive Politics, Corporate Donations, Corporate Political Spending, corporations, Good Government, Grading the States, Labor Unions, Matt Nese, Pew Center on the States, Union Campaign Donations, Contributions & Limits, Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District Of Columbia, 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

Political Participation and Civic Courage: The Negative Effect of Transparency on Making Small Campaign Contributions

This study by Raymond J. La Raja examines whether public disclosure of campaign contributions affects individuals’ willingness to donate to candidates. Across the country, state campaign finance laws require disclosure of contributors’ private information at relatively low thresholds, ranging from $1 in seven states to $300 in New Jersey. Drawing on social influence theory, La [...]

Filed Under: Disclosure, Disclosure, Disclosure Research, Disclosure State, External Relations Sub-Pages, Research, 50 States, Amherst, campaign contributions, Civic Participation, Disclosure, Political Giving, Raymond J. La Raja, Small Donors, Social Influence Theory, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Disclosure, Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District Of Columbia, 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

UPDATED: Issue Analysis 6: Do Lower Contribution Limits Produce “Good” Government?

Advocates for strict campaign finance laws and low contribution limits often suggest that such limits will do much to improve government. For this reason, proposals and groups urging the adoption of low contri­bution limits are often characterized as pro­ducing “good government.” One of the more respected evaluations of how well a state government is operated [...]

Filed Under: Contribution Limits, Contribution Limits Research, Contribution Limits State, Contributions & Limits, External Relations Sub-Pages, Research, Campaign Contribution Limits, campaign finance reform, First Amendment, Good Government, Issue Analysis 6, Luke Wachob, Matt Nese, money in politics, NCSL, Pew Center on the States, Contributions & Limits, Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District Of Columbia, 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

UPDATED: Issue Analysis 5: Do Lower Contribution Limits Decrease Public Corruption?

Note: This report is an updated version of an Issue Analysis originally published by the Center for Competitive Politics in January 2009. This version has been edited to reflect contribution limits from the 2011-2012 election cycle and corruption data, from 2001-2010. Advocates of campaign finance regulation often claim that contributions to political candidates must be limited [...]

Filed Under: Contribution Limits, Contribution Limits Research, Contribution Limits State, Contributions & Limits, Faulty Assumptions, Research, State, Campaign Contribution Limits, Center for Competitive Politics, corruption, Issue Analysis 5, Luke Wachob, Matt Nese, money in politics, the 50 states, U.S. Census Bureau, Contributions & Limits, Faulty Assumptions, Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District Of Columbia, 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

Policy Memorandum: National Popular Vote

This memo dispells several popular myths surrounding the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPV), which is quietly being signed onto in state legislatures across the country.

Filed Under: Electoral College, Research, national popular vote, npv, Electoral College, Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District Of Columbia, 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

Granite State Supreme Court stands rock-solid with First Amendment

Back in September the Supreme Court New Hampshire heard oral arguments in Green Mountain Realty Corporation v. The Fifth Estate Tower LLC. The case involved a business, Fifth Estate, that spent money urging voters in Wolfeboro to reject a proposal to build a wireless tower that would be built and operated by Green Mountain Realty. Voters did reject the Green Mountain tower, and Green Mountain subsequently sued Fifth Estate based on the novel theory that the speech of Fifth Estate was false and therefore violated the state’s Consumer Protection Act.

At trial, the lower court judge instructed the jury that the First Amendment did not protect the statements made by Fifth Estate, because the speech was commercial and not political.

The jury ruled in favor of Green Mountain, and hit them with a $6.7 million fine. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court of New Hampshire, which today affirmed common sense and the First Amendment and reversed the lower court’s ruling. You can read the ruling here:

Green Mountain Realty Corporation v. The Fifth Estate Tower

The Center for Competitive Politics was pleased to be able to submit a brief in this important test of the First Amendment, which can be read here:

 CCP brief in Green Mountain Realty Corporation v. The Fifth Estate Tower

Filed Under: Blog, New Hampshire

Free speech in the Granite State: update on Green Mountain v. Fifth Estate

Last year I wrote about the New Hampshire case of Green Mountain Realty v. Fifth Estate Tower, a case testing whether speech by a business relating to a town election warranted First Amendment rights. As I summarized then:

The case… revolves around two competing proposals in the small New Hampshire town of Wolfeboro for cell phone tower placements. Fifth Estate had one idea about where to build a new tower, [Green Mountain Realty (GMR)] had a different idea, and the matter was to be decided in a vote of the townspeople.

…Both Fifth Estate and GMR engaged in the most basic of political speech possible – mailings, newspaper ads, radio spots, handing out fliers, and speaking out in town meetings… On election day, the voters decided against the GMR proposals (Fifth Estate’s had been previously rejected as well)…

…GMR decided to sue Fifth Estate over the content of some of their statements and mailings against the [GMR] proposal, under the theory that Fifth Estate’s statements on the matter were regulated commercial speech subject to the limitations of the state Consumer Protection Act.

Filed Under: Blog, New Hampshire