Coining Corruption : The Making of the American Campaign Finance System

個数:
  • ポイントキャンペーン

Coining Corruption : The Making of the American Campaign Finance System

  • 在庫がございません。海外の書籍取次会社を通じて出版社等からお取り寄せいたします。
    通常6~9週間ほどで発送の見込みですが、商品によってはさらに時間がかかることもございます。
    重要ご説明事項
    1. 納期遅延や、ご入手不能となる場合がございます。
    2. 複数冊ご注文の場合、分割発送となる場合がございます。
    3. 美品のご指定は承りかねます。

    ≪洋書のご注文について≫ 「海外取次在庫あり」および「国内仕入れ先からお取り寄せいたします」表示の商品でもクリスマス(12/24~12/25)および年末年始までにお届けできないことがございます。あらかじめご了承ください。

  • ●この商品は国内送料無料です。
  • 製本 Hardcover:ハードカバー版/ページ数 310 p.
  • 言語 ENG,ENG
  • 商品コード 9780875803777
  • DDC分類 324.780973

Full Description


In the wake of Watergate, Congress passed the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) in an effort to prevent the corruption of future elections. The U.S. Supreme Court, in Buckley v. Valeo (1976), defined corruption as quid pro quo - "get for giving" - meaning Congress could only regulate the kind of corruption that had occurred if a campaign contributor received political favors from the candidate. This definition has since shaped and limited efforts at campaign finance reform, often with ironic and unintended consequences. By shifting the focus to the source and amount of contributions, however, the justices in the Buckley decision ignored disparities in funding and the resulting ability of particular candidates to dominate communication channels.In "Coining Corruption", legal and political historian Kurt Hohenstein provides a hitherto untold story about the successes and limitations of political reform. From 1876 until 1976, lawmakers and courts permitted regulation that potentially infringed upon freedom of speech: they understood corruption as the conversion of economic power into political power.In their view, corruption existed if a candidate's unfettered campaign spending overwhelmed other voices and limited real deliberation. Yet, as Hohenstein shows, Buckley's limited quid pro quo definition ignores these considerations.Following the evolution of the campaign finance system through the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2001 and the Supreme Court's decisions in McConnell v. FEC (2001) and Landell v. Sorrell (2006), Hohenstein calls for a return to a broad, historical understanding of corruption. American democracy demands regulation of the sources and amounts of campaign funding in order to prevent a monopoly on the vehicles of political debate. Those interested in reform politics, public policy, constitutional history, and Congress will appreciate this ground-breaking study.

Table of Contents

Acknowledgments                                    ix
Introduction---Ignoring History and the 3 (10)
Conundrum of Reform
The Beginnings of the Campaign Finance 13 (20)
System
Funding the National Interest 33 (29)
The Progressive Promise Derailed 62 (36)
Managing the Marketplace of Ideas 98 (32)
Campaign Finance ``Reform'' in the New Deal 130(37)
Professionalizing Politics and the 167(35)
``De-political'' Court
Coining Corruption 202(37)
Conclusion---From Buckley to BCRA and Beyond 239(19)
Notes 258(28)
Works Cited 286(17)
Index 303