TITLE

The Constitutionality of the SEC Pay to Play Rule: Why 206(4)-5 Survives the Deregulatory Trend in Campaign Finance

AUTHOR(S)
BELL, IVET A.
PUB. DATE
October 2015
SOURCE
Columbia Journal of Law & Social Problems;Fall2015, Vol. 49 Issue 1, p1
SOURCE TYPE
Academic Journal
DOC. TYPE
Article
ABSTRACT
Campaign finance law seeks a balance between two frequently competing interests -- protection of the individual's First Amendment right to political expression and prevention of the corrupting effects of money in politics. Recent campaign finance decisions from the Roberts Court have exhibited a markedly deregulatory approach, striking down a number of campaign contribution limits. In light of this, an SEC rule which limits the campaign contributions of investment advisers and their employees has been challenged. Rule 206(4)-5 is a prophylactic measure that seeks to prevent pay to play arrangements, in which investment advisers make campaign contributions to public officials in return for being selected for lucrative government contracts for the management of public funds. This Note argues that Rule 206(4)-5 should survive constitutional challenge, even under the most unfavorable existing Supreme Court decisions, because it counters direct quid pro quo corruption. Further, this Note contends that courts should look beyond traditional campaign finance analysis to recognize the SEC's unique, compelling interest in preserving the integrity of the markets and protecting the investments of public fund beneficiaries. The SEC's special anti-fraud interest and status as an independent agency call for deference to its choice of regulatory design in adopting Rule 206(4)-5.
ACCESSION #
111550587

 

Related Articles

  • Judicial candidates may not directly solicit contributions.  // Florida Bar News;6/1/2014, Vol. 41 Issue 11, p17 

    The article focuses on the reiteration of the Florida Supreme Court regarding the prohibition for judicial candidates to seek for a campaign contribution directly to the public in compliance with the U.S. First Amendment.

  • A Penny for Your Votes: Eliminating Corporate Contribution Bans and Promoting Disclosure After Citizens United. Raaii, Sarah G. // Iowa Law Review;Mar2015, Vol. 100 Issue 3, p1357 

    In 2010, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission established that the First Amendment protects corporate political speech. Citizens United subjected the federal ban on corporate independent expenditures to strict scrutiny, ultimately holding the ban unconstitutional. This Note argues that...

  • THE FIRST AMENDMENT LOST IN TRANSLATION: PREVENTING FOREIGN INFLUENCE IN U.S. ELECTIONS AFTER CITIZENS UNITED V. FEC. Vega, Matt A. // Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review;2011, Vol. 44 Issue 3, p951 

    This Article invites readers to consider an unusual approach to curtailing the threat of foreign corruption: limiting political speech. This Article argues that permitting foreign-owned and foreigncontrolled corporations to pour money into U.S. elections has undermined self-governance and...

  • Groups Threaten to Challenge Constitutionality of Revised G-37. Casey, Jack // Bond Buyer;2/19/2016, Vol. 1 Issue F355, p1 

    Three groups are threatening to challenge the constitutionality of the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board's revised pay-to-play rule for municipal advisors.

  • Big Surprise: New York Times wallows in muddled reasoning on campaign finance restrictions. VON SPAKOVSKY, HANS A. // Human Events;1/23/2012, Vol. 68 Issue 3, p7 

    The article explores the controversies surrounding a "New York Times" editorial which allegedly showed a complete misunderstanding of the campaign finance law, its history and the 1st amendment. The newspaper was reported to be apoplectic over an amicus brief filed by the Republican National...

  • The Clarence Thomas Court? GANDELMAN, JOE // Moderate Voice;4/4/2014, p10 

    The article reflects on the U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas's landmark decision calling for the total elimination of individual contribution caps in financing political campaigns. Thomas says that campaign finance laws are not in accordance with the U.S. Constitution First Amendment....

  • Let Money Talk. Sullum, Jacob // Reason;Jan2014, Vol. 45 Issue 8, p18 

    The article focuses on the possible impact of the proposed restrictions on political campaign contribution and spending by the U.S. Congress. It states that limiting the spending of advertisers on newspapers would violate the First Amendment in the U.S. Constitution. The Federal Election...

  • Three Can Keep a Secret, If Two of Them Are Dead: A Thought Experiment Around Compelled Public Disclosure of "Anonymous" Political Expenditures. Birkenstock, Joseph M. // Journal of Law & Politics;Summer2012, Vol. 27 Issue 4, p609 

    An essay is presented on the issue of public disclosure with respect to the concept of anonymity especially in political expenditures in the U.S. The content of the political communication in the country is based on the disclosure regimes of public disclosure and private disclosure. Information...

  • Parts of conflict minerals rule shot down; US court of appeals finds rule violates free speech.  // Mining Engineering;May2014, Vol. 66 Issue 5, p14 

    The article reports that parts of a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission rule requiring companies to disclose if their products contain conflict minerals from the Democratic Republic of Congo was struck down. It states the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit voted...

Share

Read the Article

Courtesy of NEW JERSEY STATE LIBRARY

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

Try another library?
Sign out of this library

Other Topics