TITLE

Is "Dependence Corruption" the Solution to America's Campaign Finance Problems?

AUTHOR(S)
Cain, Bruce E.
PUB. DATE
February 2014
SOURCE
California Law Review;Feb2014, Vol. 102 Issue 1, p37
SOURCE TYPE
Academic Journal
DOC. TYPE
Article
ABSTRACT
U.S. campaign finance regulation is currently in bad shape. The combination of congressional inaction, regulatory ineffectiveness, and constitutional constraint perpetuates a status quo that no one intended and many deplore. Public financing for presidential elections is effectively dead, while Super PACs and other forms of independent spending are on the rise. The 501(c)(4) nonprofit disclosure rules are very leaky, allowing corporations and others to conceal soft money contributions to Super PACs if they so choose. The Supreme Court has effectively precluded comprehensive campaign finance reform by its rulings, which have thrown out independent and personal expenditure bans, limited public finance to opt-in schemes,2 loosened the definition of issue ads, and allowed corporations to use unlimited amounts of their treasury monies to fund independent campaigns.4 To borrow from Vladimir Lenin, "[W]hat is to be done? "5 Professor Lawrence Lessig, in his Jorde Symposium Essay, What an Originalist Would Understand "Corruption" to Mean, believes the answer is to reframe the campaign finance problem as "dependence corruption " using originalist logic. Is he right? I have my doubts, as I will explain. In an effort to persuade the Court to reconsider its very narrow construction of permissible campaign finance reform, Professor Lessig is trying to thread the eye of a doctrinal needle. He wants to broaden the Buckley v. Valeo material corruption logic6 but avoid the Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce equality rationale7 that was overturned in Citizens United v. FEC.8 This is a hard task that he makes even harder by embedding "dependence corruption " in an originalist argument. In this short commentary, I will examine the merits of this approach from a political science perspective and offer an alternative way to look at the same problem. Lessig 's original-intent account rests on too many contestable counterfactual assumptions regarding what the Founders would have thought about conditions and political practices that they could not have imagined in their day. Moreover, the argument that the Constitution's intent was only direct popular sovereignty ignores the Electoral College and U.S. Senate elections, which are based on geography. Nonetheless, I must leave it to constitutional scholars to determine whether his story is plausible enough to convince the Court.9 My focus is on whether dependence corruption is the right principle for regulating campaign finance. As I will explain, I prefer to think that the problem is one of democratic distortion, and that the solution under the current constitutional constraints requires continuing efforts to open up donor participation to all voters, fix the broken disclosure system, and preserve the current system of congestion pricing.10.
ACCESSION #
94625429

 

Related Articles

  • Corruption Temptation. Charles, Guy-Uriel E. // California Law Review;Feb2014, Vol. 102 Issue 1, p25 

    In response to Professor Lawrence Lessig's Jorde Lecture, I suggest that corruption is not the proper conceptual vehicle for thinking about the problems that Professor Lessig wants us to think about. I argue that Professor Lessig's real concern is that, for the vast majority of citizens, wealth...

  • SAVING BUCKLEY: CREATING A STABLE CAMPAIGN FINANCE FRAMEWORK. Abraham, J. Robert // Columbia Law Review;May2010, Vol. 110 Issue 4, p1078 

    Since 1976, Buckley v. Valeo's contribution-expenditure distinction has been the touchstone of the campaign finance framework. Currently, lower courts are addressing the constitutionality of contribution limits to independent expenditure committees and some have adopted doctrinal approaches that...

  • Money Managers. Tomasky, Michael // Newsweek Global;2/22/2013, Vol. 161 Issue 8, p1 

    The article focuses on the U.S. Supreme Court case McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, which deals with campaign finance reform in the U.S. Topics include the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in the case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the "spending as speech" doctrine from...

  • J. SKELLY WRIGHT'S DEMOCRATIC FIRST AMENDMENT. Kalb, Johanna // Loyola Law Review;Spring2015, Vol. 61 Issue 1, p107 

    An essay is presented on Justice J. Skelly Wright's opinion in a court case Buckley v. Valeo as a judge of the Circuit Court, and on first democratic amendment in the constitution related to campaign funding. Topics discussed include criticism made by Wright on the United States Supreme Court's...

  • Know Your Political Theory. Shapiro, Robert E. // Litigation;Fall2014, Vol. 41 Issue 1, p59 

    The article offers information on the history, development, and significance of the U.S. Constitution in establishing and setting the structure of political theory with reference to the U.S. Chief Justice John Marshall's in McCulloch v. Maryland. It discusses the judicial decision of the U.S....

  • JUDGE J. SKELLY WRIGHT: POLITICS, MONEY, AND EQUALITY. Lee, Carol F. // Loyola Law Review;Spring2015, Vol. 61 Issue 1, p93 

    An essay is presented on Judge J. Skelly Wright's opinion towards campaign funds in politics, racial inequality and economic inequality. Topics discussed include his decisions in cases related to corruptions in government, approval of the campaign finance legislation by the United States'...

  • CONSTITUTIONAL LAW--FIRST AMENDMENT-AGGREGATE LIMITS ON CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS VIOLATE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS. GODWIN, ERIN // Cumberland Law Review;2015, Vol. 45 Issue 3, p639 

    The article discusses U.S. Supreme Court cases including McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission (FEC) and Citizens United v. FEC, focusing on the court's decision on how limits on campaign contributions violate First Amendment rights. Other topics include quid pro quo corruption, how the FEC...

  • FORTY YEARS AFTER WATERGATE. Karlan, Pamela S. // Boston Review;Jul/Aug2012, Vol. 37 Issue 4, p12 

    The article analyzes U.S. campaign finance law in light of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the 1976 case Buckley v. Valeo, which held that campaign contributions could be limited, while self-funding of campaigns could not. This decision is said to be related to 1974 amendments to the U.S....

  • CAMPAIGN FINANCE REGULATION.  // Supreme Court Debates;Mar2015, Vol. 18 Issue 3, p6 

    An excerpt from the report "The Constitutionality of Campaign Finance Regulation: Buckley v. Valeo and Its Supreme Court Progeny" in the November 18, 2008 issue is presented.

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