Description
Money in political campaigns is a subject of endless current interest and enormous consequence for American democracy. Beginning in 1976, in Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court established a framework for public campaign regulation that declared that money constitutes "speech" and that the only constitutional basis upon which the government can regulate money was to prohibit corruption or the appearance of corruption. The Court then defined corruption narrowly and held that direct "contributions" to candidates could be limited on that basis but that "expenditures," by political candidates and others, could not. Over time as the role of money became more and more serious in politics the Court in a number of decisions seemed to be turning more willing to accept regulation. But in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the new conservative Supreme Court sharply turned against permitting regulation, including of corporations. Today that regime of nearly full protection for anyone spending virtually any amount of money for or against candidates and issues remains securely in place. The question, after a half century of this system, is whether this interpretation of the First Amendment is sound or not. If yes, then what are the justifications and what will be the consequences? If not, then what are alternative interpretations and what would the world be like under each one? The contributors, all scholars and experts in this area, give their interpretations and proposals.
Table of Contents
Opening DialogueLee C. Bollinger & Geoffrey R. Stone Part I - Introduction to the Supreme Court Decisions on Campaign Finance Regulation1. Buckley v. Valeo's Dubious Yet Durable Contribution-Expenditure DistinctionRichard Briffault2. How Buckley v. Valeo Led Us AstrayPaul M. Smith Part II - Critiques and a Defense of the Major Decisions3. Getting It Wrong: The Supreme Court and Campaign FinanceErwin Chemerinsky & Alex Chemerinsky4. Citizens United: Cracks in the Façade Diane P. Wood5. A Defense of Buckley v. Valeo and Citizens United v. FEC Floyd AbramsPart III - Campaign Finance and Race6. Race and Campaign Finance DeregulationAbby K. WoodPart IV - Recommendations for Legislation on Campaign Finance Reform7. Money Talks, Dark Money Whispers: How Anonymous, Unlimited Political Spending is Corrupting American DemocracySheldon Whitehouse8. Elections in the Age of A.I. Amy Klobuchar & Stephen SpauldingPart V - Arguments Interpreting the "Corrpution" Rationale9. Corruption, Campaign Finance, and Criminal LawDeborah Hellman10. Campaign Finance and "Real" CorruptionNicholas O. Stephanopoulos11. Buckley at 50: By What Right?Lawrence LessigPart VI - The Effect of Campaign Finance on political institutions12. Buckley v. Valeo: Doctrinal Difficulties and Institutional FailureSamuel Issacharoff13. Campaign Finance and Political PolarizationRichard Pildes14. Party Campaign Finance from FECA to Modern Hyperpartisanship Michael S. Kang15. Beyond Corruption: Democratic Plutocracy, Elon Musk, and the Limits of Campaign Finance ReformFarris Peale & Guy-Uriel CharlesPART VII - THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CAMPAIGN FINANCEAND THE STATE OF AMERICAN DEMOCRACY16. A Political Question? Partisan Gerrymandering, Campaign Finance Regulation, and the Supreme Court David A. Strauss17. Without Buckley, Would American Democracy Really Be All That Different? Pamela S. Karlan18. Campaign Finance and Contemporary Political Dysfunction Nathaniel PersilyPART VIII - A COMPARATIVE APPROACH TO CAMPAIGN FINANCEAND THE FIRST AMENDMENT19. Leveling the Playing Field: Insights from Comparative Constitutional Law Mark TushnetClosing Statement Lee C. Bollinger & Geoffrey R. Stone
