January 2014
Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy;2014, Vol. 9 Issue 1, p179
Academic Journal
This Article considers the evidence that should be collected and developed to support the next generation of reforms before a future Supreme Court. It discusses but ultimately sidesteps theoretical debates over rationales for reform, focusing instead on the practical questions likely to face future policymakers, lawyers, and expert witnesses. Drilling down into the ample evidentiary record in McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, we address the types of evidence that should be amassed by supporters of future regulation. This evidentiary record, we suggest, will be essential in both formulating the next generation of campaign finance reform and in defending it in court. We argue that, regardless of whether one favors an anti-corruption or egalitarian rationale for regulation, the evidentiary record should focus on conflicts of interest—in particular, on whether a reasonable legislator would feel pressure to act in way that is different from the preferences of her constituents or the public interest. This is something more than a showing of unequal access, but something less than a showing of actual influence on policymaking. In the near term, our suggestions are designed to help define a research agenda for qualitative and quantitative empirical researchers. In the long term, they offer a roadmap for the legislators shaping and the lawyers defending future regulations before a Supreme Court less reflexively antagonistic to reform than the current one.


Related Articles

  • OLDERMINORS, THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR (ALMOST ENTIRELY) NONLETHAL ARMS, AND THE RIGHT TO DEFEND LIFE. Volokh, Eugene // Arizona State Law Journal;Summer2011, Vol. 43 Issue 2, p447 

    The article focuses on the constitutional rights of minors in the U.S. Topics discusses include the rule which don't bar older minors access to nonlethal weapons in most states, unconstitutionality of the ban on older minors' possession of nonlethal weapons under rights to bear arms and old...

  • A DEBATE ON CAMPAIGN FINANCE DISCLOSURE. Malloy, Tara; Smith, Bradley A. // Vermont Law Review;Summer2014, Vol. 38 Issue 4, p933 

    The article presents the views of former news director at Vermont Public Radio Ross Sneyd, senior counsel for the Campaign Legal Center Tara Malloy, and Bradley Smith, chairman of the Center for Competitive Politic on the campaign finance disclosure law in the U.S. Topics discussed include the...

  • Top 10 Supreme Court Decisions That Should Be Reversed.  // Human Events;1/16/2006, Vol. 62 Issue 2, p10 

    This article presents the top ten U.S. Supreme Court decisions that the author thinks should be reversed. Included here are Roe v. Wade, Lawrence v. Texas, Everson v. Board of Education, McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, Grutter v. Bollinger, Plyer v. Doe, Baker v. Carr, and U.S. Term...

  • McCONNELL, UNITED STATES SENATOR, et al. v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION et al.: appeal for the united states district for the district of columbia .  // Supreme Court Cases: The Twenty-first Century (2000 - Present);2009, p1 

    The article presents information on the U.S. Supreme Court case McConnell, United States Senator, et al. v. Federal Election Commission et al., case number 02-1674, argued on September 8, 2003 and decided on December 10, 2003. Federal enactments designed to purge national politics of what is...

  • LOWER COURT HOLDING IN MCCUTCHEON V. FEC.  // Supreme Court Debates;Nov2013, Vol. 16 Issue 8, p8 

    No abstract available.

  • High Court Strikes Down Ban on Minors' Giving. Keller, Bess // Education Week;1/7/2004, Vol. 23 Issue 16, p28 

    The U.S. Supreme Court has unanimously overturned a section of the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law barring people under 18 from making political contributions, as of January 7, 2004. The ruling last month came as part of the high court's lengthy decision in the McConnell v. Federal Election...

  • THE COURT HAS RULED: LONG LIVE CHAOS. Buckley Jr., W.M. F. // National Review;3/5/1976, Vol. 28 Issue 7, p230 

    The article explores the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling concerning limitations on contributions to the campaign funds of a political candidate, as of March 1976. Some claim that it is a bill that favors rich people. Very rich people in the U.S. who spend a lot of their money on their candidates...

  • Court okays limiting campaign spending.  // State Government News;Oct2002, Vol. 45 Issue 9, p7 

    Reports on the ruling of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals regarding Act 64 of the 1997 Vermont law which limits the campaign spending of gubernatorial candidates. Amount of the limit; List of parties that challenged the law; Decision of the U.S. Supreme Court on the issue in 1976.

  • The Supreme Court and Freedom of Speech, 2004-2005. Siegel, Paul // Free Speech Yearbook;2005, Vol. 42, p111 

    The article discusses several U.S. Supreme Court cases including Wisconsin Right to Life Inc. v. Federal Election Commission, McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, and Multimedia Holdings Corporation v. Circuit Court of Florida 1624. It gives details of each case and the decisions. The judge...


Read the Article


Sorry, but this item is not currently available from your library.

Try another library?
Sign out of this library

Other Topics