The Bedford Researcher: Chapter 13 Summary and Discussion

Chapter 13 in The Bedford Researcher discusses how to organize a paper for a writing project. The chapter reviews common organizational patterns used to format writing projects; chronology, description, definition, cause/effect, compare/contrast and process explanation are some of the types of organizational patterns that Palmquist defines and discusses as options for formatting a paper. Section B of the chapter reviews how to arrange an argument, including labeling, grouping, clustering and mapping. Section C reviews outlining techniques and includes a sample thumbnail outline on page 226 and contrasts the sample sentence topical outlines provided on page 228.

Creating an outline for a paper is one of the most difficult aspects of a writing project. You need to take all the information and research from the sources and group and cluster parts of that information into sections that make sense. The literature review assignment is a helpful reference for one’s outline because it already has groups of the information and has themes that can be used for organizational purposes. I struggle the most with outlines because I’m constantly arranging and rearranging the sections. It’s hard to know if a cause and effect approach will be better than a chronological one for my paper topic. I am working with what seems a lot of themes or categories of information and it seems choppy to me right now. This chapter was helpful because it provides a lot of samples for ways to outline a paper. 

Annotated Bibliography

Christina Aga
Dr. Sonia Begert
ENGL 102
12 May 2015

1. Campbell, Jason S. "Down The Rabbit Hole With Citizens United: Are Bans On Corporate Direct Campaign Contributions Still Constitutional?" Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 45.1 (2011): 171-206. Academic Search Premier. Web. 7 May 2015.

This source argues that, given the Citizens United ruling as it relates to indirect corporate contributions and independent spending third party spending on behalf of candidates, precedence has been set and direct corporate campaign contributions ought to be legal. This source offers an opposing view of the argument that will be made in my paper. Campbell argues that third party entities (i.e. corporate donors) already have a presence in the political campaign process and direct contributions should be legalized.

2. Carney, Eliza N. “Rules of the Game: Court Unlikely To Stop With Citizens United.” National Journal. National Journal, 21 January 2010. Web. 21 April 2015.

 Carney’s National Journal article reviews the highlights of the Citizens United ruling and reviews the implications that the ruling will have on donor contribution disclosure requirements. Carney speculates on how the recent use of the Citizens United ruling will be used for future legislation. She cites the Washington state Doe v. Reed case, where it is being argued that mandatory disclosure requirements are unconstitutional because they make donors vulnerable to potential harassment and discrimination.

3. "Citizens United At Work: How The Landmark Decision Legalized Political Coercion In The Workplace." Harvard Law Review 128.2 (2014): 669-690. Academic Search Premier. Web. 21 May 2015.

This source reviews the Citizens United ruling and how it may be applied and used for coercion. The information from this source will provide a hypothetical circumstance in which the court ruling makes coercion the workplace legal and ultimately support my positions statement. Like other sources, this article reviews why the Citizens United ruling has a negative effect on the political process. Unlike other sources, this article interprets the ways in which corporations may use their employees for political purposes.

4.    “First Amendment ­– Freedom of Speech – Aggregate Contribution Limits – McCutcheon V. FEC.” Harvard Law Review 128.1 (2014): 201-210. Academic Search Premier. Web. 21 April 2015.

This source reviews the McCutcheon v. FEC Supreme Court ruling in detail. It analyzes the argument made by Justice Roberts, the author of the majority justices, and explains the plurality interpretation of a previous campaign finance ruling in Buckley v. Valeo. This informative source provides the outline and framework of the McCutcheon ruling.

5.     Gerken, Heather K. “The Real Problem with Citizens United: Campaign Finance, Dark Money, and Shadow Parties.” Marquette Law Review 97.4 (2014): 903-923. Academic Search Premier. Web. 23 April 2015.

This article is a version of the speech given as the Boden Lecture at the Marquette University Law School. In this article, Gerken offers observations on why Citizens United may prove to be more harmful than helpful in the world of campaign finance. The focus of this paper is on campaign funds from undisclosed sources – so-called “dark money” – and how the current political climate may be shifting from the formal party structure to one that is made up of powerful interest groups that lay outside of party lines, or “shadow parties.” She argues that is seems to be a money-driven process, but is actually a power-driven process, whereby well-funded voluntary committees, immune to the regulations that apply to formal political entities, coordinate with party elites in order to endorse or oppose candidates.

Gerken posits that Citizens United wasn’t important because of what it said about corporations, but mattered because of how it defined corruption. The Citizens United ‘quid pro quo’ definition opens the door to access and ingratiation, which used to be prohibited.

6.     Gilpatrick, Breanne. "Removing Corporate Campaign Finance Restrictions in Citizens United V. Federal Election Commission, 130 S. CT. 876 (2010)." Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy 34.1 (2011): 405-420. Academic Search Premier. Web. 26 May 2015.

Gilpatrick’s article discusses the Citizens United ruling in a narrative and easily digestible format. She begins chronologically with Citizens United as an entity and how their landmark case against the FEC changed the political campaign finance landscape. She reviews other rulings or aspects of previous rulings that were overturned as a result of Citizens United.

7.     Haan, Sarah C. “The CEO and the Hydraulics of Campaign Finance Deregulation.” Northwestern University Law Review 109.1 (2014): 269-283. Academic Search Premier. Web. 29 April 2015.

This source discusses the issue of campaign contribution disclosure regulation, as argued by the Roberts court, for campaign finance reform. The “deregulate and disclose” approach will not result in full contribution disclosure, argues Haan, due to the potential repercussions and discrimination associated with political contributions. Haan reviews the so-called “hydraulic” effects of political contributions and contends that restrictions and limits placed on donors result in the movement of that money elsewhere. This “elsewhere” is less transparent and more difficult to trace – the exact opposite of the intended outcome of the Roberts court ruling in McCutcheon.

8.     Hasen, Richard L. "Citizens United and the Illusion of Coherence." Michigan Law Review 109.4 (2011): 581-623. Academic Search Premier. Web. 22 May 2015.

Hasen offers his view of the Citizens United ruling and the jurisprudence of the key points of campaign finance law that preceded it. He notes that, given the line of argument from the majority justices, future campaign finance reform is likely to follow in the steps of the Citizens United ruling, whereby regulation is scaled down and restrictions are loosened.

9.     Hellman, Deborah. “Money Talks But It Isn’t Speech.” Minnesota Law Review 95.3     (2011): 953-1002. Academic Search Premier. Web. 21 April 2015.

Deborah Hellman reviews and breaks down the Citizens United ruling in this article. She analyzes the use of the free speech clause of the first amendment as grounds for the ruling and argues against the majority opinion authored by Justice Kennedy. She recalls the rationale used in the now over-turned Buckley V. Valeo ruling, which explores the relationship between money and free speech. Hellman systematically dismantles the free speech card used in Citizens United; money may facilitate and incentivize speech, but restricting the use of money does not eliminate free speech.  

10.  Johnstone, Anthony. “Recalibrating Campaign Finance Law.” Yale Law & Policy Review 32.1 (2013): 217-237. Academic Search Premier. Web. 28 April 2015.

Johnstone recognizes the importance of financial contributions for political candidates in this article. He goes on to discuss the contribution limits and disclosure thresholds in an attempt to redirect the campaign finance discussion toward the relationship between contributions and election campaigns as a foundation for necessary reform within the current Citizens United political climate.

11.  Kalanick, Cory G. “Blowing Up The Pipes: The Use Of (C) (4) To Dismantle Campaign Finance Reform.” Minnesota Law Review 95.6 (2011): 2254-2284. Academic Search Premier. Web. 21 April 2015.

This source discusses how corporations and individuals are utilizing non-profit groups for the purposes of evading contribution regulations regarding disclosure. Kalanick reviews tax-exempt groups, political activity within those groups, and what a 501(c)(4) designation allows politically minded groups to do. He discusses the intersection of the tax code and politics in both a historical and current context.  Kalanick reviews the impact Citizens United has had on speech and how the correlation between a vote and dollars allows voters to be drowned out by dollars from special interest persons.

12.  Krumholz, Sheila. "Campaign Cash and Corruption: Honey in Politics, Post-Citizens United." Social Research 80.4 (2013): 1119-1134. Academic Search Premier. Web. 20 May 2015.

Krumholz reviews U.S. political finance over the last fifteen years and focuses on the most recent 2012 mid-term presidential election. She focuses on this election in light of the changes made to political finance as a result of the Citizens United ruling. Krumholz argues that the amount of money involved in the most recent presidential election is only the first step towards a political arena where third party expenditures will surpass regulated and transparent campaign funding.

13.  La Raja, Raymond J. “Campaign Finance and Partisan Polarization in the United States Congress.” Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy 9.1 (2014): 223-258. Academic Search Premier. Web. 21 April 2015.

La Raja argues that campaign finance restraints have actually contributed to party polarization. He discusses the opposing ideological poles between the two major political parties in the U.S. and how pre- Citizens United campaign finance laws have contributed to this phenomena. This perspective will balance my own take on the current campaign finance laws and be used to argue against my position statement.

14.  Ornstein, Norm. “McCutcheon and the New Banana Republic.” The Atlantic. The Atlantic 17 April 2014. Web. 21 April 2015.

Similar in tone to Eliza Carney’s National Journal article, Ornstein discusses the implications that the McCutcheon ruling will have on campaign finance. This source links together the manner in which both McCutcheon and Citizens United are being used to circumvent donor contributions disclosure requirements. Ornstein cites how disclosure does not always provide information on the origin of a contribution – following the trail of a donation through the channels of joint committees as it’s pooled with other contributions and divided again is often times impossible.  McCutcheon, argues Ornstein, allows contributions to be laundered; the disclosure requirements are therefore null and void.

15.  Pursley, Garrick B. "The Campaign Finance Safeguards Of Federalism." Emory Law Journal 63.4 (2014): 781-855. Academic Search Premier. Web. 21 May 2015.

This source details the relationship between federalism and campaign finance. The Citizens United ruling has introduced a new class of political entities with a potentially limitless influence on the political process (i.e. Super PACs). Pursely argues that this ruling has the ability to foster an environment where groups like Super PACs are able to circumvent all the political safeguards of federalism.

16.  Rosen, Mark D. "When Are Constitutional Rights Non-Absolute? McCutcheon, Conflicts, and the Sufficiency Question." William & Mary Law Review 56.4 (2015): 1535-1611. Academic Search Premier. Web. 22 May 2015.

This source reviews the McCutcheon v. FEC Supreme Court ruling and constitutional rights that are non-absolute. Rosen discusses which aspects of the BCRA in 2002 were reversed as a result of McCutcheon and what grounds the ruling justices had for overturning them. Rosen interprets the BCRA law and how it applies to the ruling majority’s argument. Rosen ultimately argues against the rationale used in McCutcheon and speculates as to how the ruling will negatively affect campaign finance in the future.

17.  Sitaraman, Ganesh. “Contracting Around Citizens United.” Columbia Law Review 114.3 (2014): 755-806. Academic Search Premier. Web. 27 April 2015.

In this article, Ganesh uses his own experience as the former policy director and senior counsel for Senator Elizabeth Warren to explore the ways in which third-party spending can be curtailed in a post-Citizens United context. He acknowledges how third-party spending has negatively influenced elections as a result of Citizens United and goes on to argue that private ordering, or self-enforcing private contracts between opposing candidates, may be a way to reduce third-party influence. Ganesh outlines how these contracts work and champions this option as an alternative to constitutional amendments, more disclosure requirements, and public financing programs.

18.  Spencer, Andrew. "Cleaning Elections." Arizona Law Review 54.1 (2012): 277-309. Academic Search Premier. Web. 3 May 2015.

Spencer introduces the idea of clean elections in this source. He cites recent Supreme Court decisions that having bearing on campaign finance acknowledges the ways in which these rulings allow for a conflict of interest and potential corruption. Spencer outlines how traditional campaign finance reform laws are ineffective, why clean elections systems may be a solution to regulatory gaps, and the manner in which clean elections are successful, citing recent Arizona state laws as a model.

19.  Vega, Matt A. "The First Amendment Lost In Translation: Preventing Foreign Influence In U.S. Elections After Citizens United V. Fec." Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 44.3 (2011): 951-1017. Academic Search Premier. Web. 24 May 2015.

Vega describes the First Amendment argument used in Citizens United ruling and offers an alternate interpretation of the free speech clause. He notes how the unintended effects of the ruling will allow for foreign interests to play a role in the political process in the United States. He outlines his disagreement with the Citizens United ruling and premise of the argument used in the ruling and forecasts the implications of the court ruling for future elections.

20.  Vogel, Glen M. "Clinton, Campaigns, and Corporate Expenditures: The Supreme Court's Recent Decision in Citizens United and its Impact on Corporate Political Influence." St. John's Law Review 86.1 (2012): 183-210. Academic Search Premier. Web. 3 May 2015.

Vogel reviews the Citizens United ruling in detail. Unlike other sources, this article deals exclusively with the ruling and gives equal merit to the financial involvement that corporations may and may not have in political elections. Vogel has a fair and balanced perspective and tempers the cons with the pros of Citizens United. 

The Bedford Researcher: Chapter 19 Summary and Discussion

Chapter 19 in The Bedford Researcher reviews the different ways to write a document or craft a presentation. The section of this chapter that is most applicable to our course is the section on academic essays. Expressing an idea or argument can be done in a multitude of ways but the academic essay is the most common way for students to get a handle on the core components of a written composition piece. Page 299 includes a checklist for the basic elements of an academic essay and section 19b reviews the outline of a multimodal essay. Subsequent sections include ways to design articles, web sites, oral presentations, multimedia presentations, and poster presentations.

The section that reviews academic essays is the most relevant part of chapter 19. The remaining sections have a lot of great information but aren’t useful for the purposes of this particular course. Having done many oral presentations with the aid of PowerPoint, I can say that the oral presentation section is really helpful and covers a lot of the mistakes most people first make when giving an oral presentation. Most college students may not be creating their own web sites for a typical class but, because oral presentations are becoming more common, it is likely that oral presentations will be required at some point in one’s college or professional career.

The Bedford Researcher: Chapter 18 Summary and Discussion

Chapter 18 in The Bedford Researcher discusses the use of design in writing projects. Formatting, placement, and alignment contribute to the flow of a paper and can underscore a certain point or element of the text. Palmquist notes that the purpose of a paper should inform the writer’s design decisions; as such, having a clear and well-defined purpose in a paper is essential. Headings, pull quotes, color scheme, and shading are all different ways of setting the tone of a paper. Images may also be used to help accomplish the purpose of a writing project. Indeed, images can often set the tone before a reader even begins to read the body of the essay.

The information in chapter 18 was especially helpful to me for formatting reasons. My paper will review detailed law cases and cover a lot of information, names and people. The use of sub-sections and subheadings will help me keep the paper organized and aid the reader in following my line of argument. While I may not be inclined to use photos, I have been looking at using a graph that will help illustrate one of the concepts important to my position statement. The use of color, shading and borders, however, might be too busy for a paper like the one we’re writing for this course.

Chapter sixteen in The Bedford Researcher: Summary and Discussion

Chapter sixteen in The Bedford Researcher reviews writing styles. Two components important to writing style include an understanding of the issue and a consistent point of view with regard to that issue. The way a paper is styled may say a lot about the complexity of the issue; scholars in a given field omit the use of I or first-person pronouns, according to Palmquist. Academic scholars may discuss observations and possible reasons for political phenomena instead out right causality. This chapter also reviews ways to eliminate stock phrases and unnecessary modifiers. Additionally, Palmquist  notes that there are instances where you may want to use the passive instead of the active voice. The chapter also includes tips on how to use effective vocabulary.

This chapter has a lot of great information but most of it was a refresher for me. I feel like a lot of the information is intuitive, especially if the writer of a research paper has done enough research for their topic. Researching a topic and reviewing sources will lend itself to the style of writing one should adopt when discussing the subject matter. More complex issues may require a more balanced perspective and a passive voice, for example. One tricky thing that I am facing with my topic is how to take campaign finance reform out of the realm of academic (read: boring) and into something that non-academics care about. 

The Bedford Researcher: Chapter 15 Summary and Review

Chapter fifteen in The Bedford Researcher reviews ways to effectively incorporate sources into a research paper. There are various strategies for using source information in a way that supports a position and Palmquist offers some for the introductory section in 15a. He notes that a quotation or paraphrase from a credible source at the start of a paper immediately sets the tone and direction of the paper. The ways in which a writer contrasts ideas and arguments will cue the reader as to the writer’s position; the use of paraphrases and summaries are often used to express complex ideas, whereas quotations may be used to convey emotional qualities of the writer’s position. By aligning one’s argument with an authority or expert, providing examples, and qualifying a point, sources may be used in a variety of ways. Subsequent sections in the chapter include ways to properly include in-text citations, properly cite quotations and the use of attributions.

This chapter included a lot of great ways to begin writing the introductory section to a paper. I liked reviewing the examples provided in the text because they illustrated how effective the right quotation can be when setting the tone of a paper. Additionally, the chapter underscored the importance of and different ways to use examples, especially if an issue is complex. The attribution examples at the end of the chapter are useful. I also liked that the chapter reiterated the importance of distinguishing source ideas and the writer’s ideas, as they can easy to blur together when writing and re-wording a draft. 

Research Proposal

*Note: Due to formatting issues, the Works Cited section includes sources that are not indented.

Christina Aga

Dr. Sonia Apgar Begert

ENGL 102

12 May 2015

Introduction

Outside of the legal community, few have heard of or paid attention to the U.S. Supreme Court rulings in the cases Citizens United V. Federal Election Commission and McCutcheon V. Federal Election Commission, rendered in 2010 and 2014, respectively. Both of these rulings have a profound effect on campaign finance and undo decades of legislation. These rulings, delivered as a one-two punch to campaign finance reform laws, effectively eviscerate legislation meant to thwart corruption and avoid undue influence in the political process. Under the guise of the free speech clause of the First Amendment, these rulings allow special interests groups to buy their way into the political graces of elected officials. With unprecedented levels of campaign spending for the 2012 mid-term presidential election, one may wonder if the 2016 presidential race will have more to do with money and less to do with politics.

These rulings mark a historic departure from previous legislation, one that threatens to undermine the integrity of elected offices. The wording of the Citizens United ruling redefines corruption in a very literal and narrow way, allowing for the re-emergence of previously illegal soft money. The McCutcheon ruling adds insult to injury by eliminating aggregate campaign contribution limits. Both rulings uphold mandatory disclosure provisions, yet these regulatory provisions have no teeth and may be easily side-stepped, allowing for the influence of veiled political actors. This paper will review each of the two U.S. Supreme Court decisions, examine how the rulings alter the way campaigns are financed, and argue that these two rulings are more harmful than helpful to campaign finance. The likely implications of the U.S. Supreme Court rulings in Citizens United and McCutcheon regarding campaign contributions and political participation may very well open to doors to undue influence from shadow parties, veiled political actors, and allow for special interests to avoid disclosure requirements by exploiting the advantages of non-profit status.

Review of Literature

Sources for this writing project are mostly scholarly articles from peer reviewed journals of law or political science. I found Heather Gerken’s article “The Real Problem With Citizens United: Campaign Finance, Dark Money, And Shadow Parties,” a Boden Lecture featured in the Marquette Law Review, to be especially helpful, as it gave an easy-to-read narrative of campaign finance and included her perspective on the ruling. Finance lawyer Cory Kalanick provides his analysis of how non-profit groups are being used to circumvent campaign finance regulations in an article from 2011, “Blowing Up the Pipes: The Use of (c)(4) to Dismantle Campaign Finance Reform,” published in the Minnesota Law Review. Harvard Law Review article, “First Amendment -- Freedom of Speech -- Aggregate Contribution Limits -- McCutcheon v. FEC,” gives a comprehensive outline of the McCutcheon ruling. Deborah Hellman gives a lengthy analysis on why she disagrees with the freedom of speech rationale used to support the Citizens United ruling in “Money Talks but It Isn’t Speech,” also a 2011 article from the Minnesota Law Review. Assistant Professor of Law at Vanderbilt Law School, Ganesh Sitaraman, addresses the restrictions that Citizens United has put on regulating spending and provides insight as to how self-enforcing contracts may be the solution in his article, “Contracting Around Citizens United,” published in the Columbia Law Review in 2014. Anthony Johnstone bemoans recent campaign finance rulings while providing perspective on how to work within the current Citizens United legislative framework in his article, “Recalibrating Campaign Finance Law,” published in the Yale Law & Policy Review in 2013.

In an effort to balance the perspectives that shape this research paper, I take into account Raymond La Raja’s perspective in his 2014 article from the Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy, “Campaign Finance and Partisan Polarization in the United States Congress.” La Raja’s paper argues that, in order to minimize ideological polarization between parties, one must strengthen the financing position of party organizations. Jason Campbell plays the devil’s advocate in the Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review article “Down the Rabbit Hole with Citizens United: Are Bans on Corporate Direct Campaign Contributions Still Constitutional?” and argues that, given the Citizens United ruling, direct corporate financing should be legal. The theme of that article is touched upon in Eliza Newlin Carney’s National Journal article “Court Unlikely to Stop with Citizens United,” in which she speculates that other campaign finance regulations will go by the wayside as a result of Citizens United. Norm Ornstein echoes similar sentiments in his recent 2014 article published in The Atlantic, “McCutcheon and the New Banana Republic,” opining that disclosure will be a difficult thing to mandate as a result of the McCutcheon ruling.

Plan to Collect Information

In addition to the sources cited in this proposal, I plan to review the other sources listed in my working bibliography more closely. I chose not to review and include those articles in this proposal because I still have yet to see how they will work into my paper in a way that I have not already covered. There seems to be some overlap with regard to the dissenting opinions on the McCutcheon and Citizens United rulings and I want to ensure that each source offers my paper a new or fresh take on the issue that I have yet to cover. Additionally, there are two scholarly articles that I have yet to fully review. These are the actual Supreme Court ruling dockets for each case and they are quite lengthy. I want to review one or two more sources that refer to the 2012 mid-term presidential election spending, in addition to reviewing the overall spending disclosures by group since 2010. I anticipate this ancillary information will be useful for comparison purposes when describing the campaign finance climate pre- and post- Citizens United.

Timeline

By the end of this week, I plan on writing a summary analysis of each of the twenty sources that I currently have, in addition to the two court documents, in order to see how I may incorporate them into my paper. Additionally, I will have two of my interlibrary loan documents by the 18^th of May. I plan on having these articles read, reviewed, and summarized by the annotated bibliography due date. These summaries will provide me with a solid foundation for my literature review paper. I will use the literature review as a reference for the purposes of inserting supporting sources to my argument or trim away anything redundant. Aside from organizing my current sources and reading three or four new ones, I am on schedule for starting the draft of my paper.

Works Cited

Campbell, Jason S. "Down The Rabbit Hole With Citizens United: Are Bans On Corporate Direct Campaign Contributions Still Constitutional?" Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 45.1 (2011): 171-206. Academic Search Premier. Web. 7 May 2015.

Carney, Eliza N. “Rules of the Game: Court Unlikely To Stop With Citizens United.” National    Journal. National Journal, 21 January 2010. Web. 21 April 2015.

“First Amendment ­– Freedom of Speech – Aggregate Contribution Limits – McCutcheon V. FEC.” Harvard Law Review 128.1 (2014): 201-210. Academic Search Premier. Web. 21 April 2015.

Gerken, Heather K. “The Real Problem With Citizens United: Campaign Finance, Dark Money,   And Shadow Parties.” Marquette Law Review 97.4 (2014): 903-923. Academic Search Premier. Web. 23 April 2015.

Hellman, Deborah. “Money Talks But It Isn’t Speech.” Minnesota Law Review 95.3 (2011): 953- 1002. Academic Search Premier. Web. 21 April 2015.

Johnstone, Anthony. “Recalibrating Campaign Finance Law.” Yale Law & Policy Review 32.1 (2013): 217-237. Academic Search Premier. Web. 28 April 2015.

Kalanick, Cory G. “Blowing Up The Pipes: The Use Of (C) (4) To Dismantle Campaign Finance Reform.” Minnesota Law Review 95.6 (2011): 2254-2284. Academic Search Premier. Web. 21 April 2015.

La Raja, Raymond J. “Campaign Finance And Partisan Polarization In The United States Congress.” Duke Journal Of Constitutional Law & Public Policy 9.1 (2014): 223-258. Academic Search Premier. Web. 21 April 2015.

Ornstein, Norm. “McCutcheon and the New Banana Republic.” The Atlantic. The Atlantic, 17 April 2014. Web. 21 April 2015.

Sitaraman, Ganesh. “Contracting Around Citizens United.” Columbia Law Review 114.3 (2014): 755-806. Academic Search Premier. Web. 27 April 2015. 

The Bedford Researcher: Chapter 9 Summary and Discussion

Chapter nine of The Bedford Researcher reviews how to research sources that are not on the internet. The chapter has an introductory section for using library print sources and information on how to browse book stacks. There are navigation tips for those unaccustomed to using print sources at a library. One of the perks of browsing library stacks is that, because the classification system is subject based, you can browse freely through the shelves of a subject related to your topic. You don’t have to use certain Boolean phrases, know how to type in proper terminology, or sift your way through a staggering number of search results. Sometimes the perks of using print sources is that they may not be available on the internet – or readily available. The chapter includes information on the Inter-library Loan process, as well.

This chapter wasn't applicable to my writing topic at first but it did include a lot of great information on how to navigate the works cited pages of articles that are helpful to me. When I come across a quotation or reference in a journal article that I know I’ll want to use in my paper, I navigate to the Works Cited section or make note of the annotation, circle it, and save it for later. I now have another potential source! I have to be careful to keep my sources diverse, though, or else they’ll all be related in one way or another to a certain journal or university. I've utilized the bibliographies of articles a few times so far but three of these promising sources are only available through Inter-library Loan.

Chapter 3 of The Bedford Researcher: Summary and Discussion

Chapter three of The Bedford Researcher focuses on developing a research question and proposal. Now that we’ve explored a writing topic and gathered sources, it’s important to reflect on what we have learned and identify what has changed. It’s likely that the level of initial understanding of the issue has changed and crafting research questions to reflect those changes will be necessary. Step two on page 42 has a great exercise that allows a writer to generate more research questions. What will the focus of the paper be? What assumptions do people have about the issue? Working through the exercise questions on the table on page 43 helps the writer gain a better understanding of what they’ll want to accomplish. The second half of the chapter focuses on how to write a proposal. There are six main components to a proposal, including: title page, introduction to the topic, review of literature, information collection methodology, timeline, and a working bibliography.

We reviewed a portion of the first section of this chapter two weeks ago in lecture, which was helpful in allowing me to develop different ways of asking my research question. I am more interested in how to write a good proposal so the second half of the chapter was more helpful to me. Pages 54-57 include a sample research proposal for reference. I am a little concerned that the review of literature section will be very long for my proposal, given that there is a lot of information to cover. I imagine an annotated bibliography will help me identify which sections of certain articles I ought to review and discuss.

Working Bibliography

Note: Due to blog formatting issues, the following citations deviate from MLA in that they are not double spaced and do not include indentations.

Carney, Eliza N. “Rules of the Game: Court Unlikely To Stop With Citizens United.” National Journal. National Journal, 21 January 2010. Web. 21 April 2015.

“First Amendment ­– Freedom of Speech – Aggregate Contribution Limits – McCutcheon V. FEC.” Harvard Law Review 128.1 (2014): 201-210. Academic Search Premier. Web. 21 April 2015.

Flavin, Patrick. “Campaign Finance Laws, Policy Outcomes, And Political Equality in The American States.” Political Research Quarterly 68.1 (2015): 77-88. Academic Search Premier. Web. 21 April 2015.

Gerken, Heather K. “The Real Problem With Citizens United: Campaign Finance, Dark Money, And Shadow Parties.” Marquette Law Review 97.4 (2014): 903-923. Academic Search Premier. Web. 23 April 2015.

Haan, Sarah C. “The CEO And The Hydraulics Of Campaign Finance Deregulation.” Northwestern University Law Review 109.1 (2014): 269-283. Academic Search Premier. Web. 29 April 2015.

Hasen, Richard L. "Is 'Dependence Corruption' Distinct From A Political Equality Argument For Campaign Finance Laws? A Reply To Professor Lessig." Election Law Journal 12.3 (2013): 305-316. Academic Search Premier. Web. 2 May 2015.

Hasen, Richard L. "Three Wrong Progressive Approaches (And One Right One) To Campaign Finance Reform." Harvard Law & Policy Review 8.1 (2014): 21-37. Academic Search Premier. Web. 4 May 2015.

Heerwig, Jennifer A, Katherine Shaw. "Through A Glass, Darkly: The Rhetoric And Reality Of Campaign Finance Disclosure." Georgetown Law Journal 102.5 (2014): 1443-1500. Academic Search Premier. Web. 4 May 2015.

Hellman, Deborah. “Money Talks But It Isn’t Speech.” Minnesota Law Review 95.3 (2011): 953-1002. Academic Search Premier. Web. 21 April 2015.

Hunker, Kathleen. "Elections Across The Pond: Comparing Campaign Finance Regimes In The United States And United Kingdom." Harvard Journal Of Law & Public Policy 36.3 (2013): 1099-1137. Academic Search Premier. Web. 4 May 2015.

Johnson, Joel W. “Campaign Spending In Proportional Electoral Systems: Incumbents Versus Challengers Revisited.” Comparative Political Studies 46.8 (2013): 968-993. Academic Search Premier. Web. 29 April 2015.

Johnstone, Anthony. “Recalibrating Campaign Finance Law.” Yale Law & Policy Review 32.1(2013): 217-237. Academic Search Premier. Web. 28 April 2015.

Kalanick, Cory G. “Blowing Up The Pipes: The Use Of (C) (4) To Dismantle Campaign Finance Reform.” Minnesota Law Review 95.6 (2011): 2254-2284. Academic Search Premier. Web. 21 April 2015.

La Raja, Raymond J. “Campaign Finance And Partisan Polarization In The United States Congress.” Duke Journal Of Constitutional Law & Public Policy 9.1 (2014): 223-258. Academic Search Premier. Web. 21 April 2015.

La Raja, Raymond J, Brian F. Schaffner. “The Effects Of Campaign Finance Spending Bans On Electoral Outcomes: Evidence From The States About The Potential Impact Of Citizens United V. FEC.” Electoral Studies 33 (2014): 102-114. Academic Search Premier. Web. 29 April 2015.

Milyo, Jeff. “Campaign Spending And Electoral Competition: Towards More Policy Relevant Research.” Forum 11.3 (2013): 437-454. Academic Search Premier. Web. 29 April 2015.

Nwokora, Zim. "The Distinctive Politics Of Campaign Finance Reform." Party Politics 20.6 (2014): 918-929. Academic Search Premier. Web. 4 May 2015.

Ornstein, Norm. “McCutcheon and the New Banana Republic.” The Atlantic. The Atlantic 17 April 2014. Web. 21 April 2015.

Sitaraman, Ganesh. “Contracting Around Citizens United.” Columbia Law Review 114.3 (2014): 755-806. Academic Search Premier. Web. 27 April 2015.

Spencer, Andrew. "Cleaning Elections." Arizona Law Review 54.1 (2012): 277-309. Academic Search Premier. Web. 3 May 2015.

Vogel, Glen M. "Clinton, Campaigns, And Corporate Expenditures: The Supreme Court's Recent Decision In Citizens United And Its Impact On Corporate Political Influence." St. John's Law Review 86.1 (2012): 183-210. Academic Search Premier. Web. 3 May 2015.

In-class lab worksheet: Incorporating Sources Effectively

Note: Due to formatting issues, the following citations are not double spaced and do not include indentations.

1a. According to constitutional law Professor Heather Gerken of Yale’s Law School, “The fact that so much independent election spending is “dark money” must be laid at the feet of Congress and the Federal Election Commission (FEC), which have failed to enact adequate disclosure regulations” (907).

Gerken, Heather K. “The Real Problem With Citizens United: Campaign Finance, Dark Money, And Shadow Parties.” Marquette Law Review 97.4 (2014): 903-923. Academic Search Premier. Web. 23 April 2015.

1b. University of Maryland Professor of Law Deborah Hellman disagrees with the Citizens United ruling by noting, “[S]pending money in connection with elections need not always be considered a part of the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment” (955).

Hellman, Deborah. “Money Talks But It Isn’t Speech.” Minnesota Law Review 95.3 (2011): 953-1002. Academic Search Premier. Web. 21 April 2015.

2a. Public finance lawyer Cory Kalanick of the University of Minnesota’s Law School commented on the Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United V. FEC in a 2011 campaign finance reform article. As a contributor to the Minnesota Law Review, Kalanick discussed the repercussions that the ruling would have on campaign finance. In his article, he comments on the surprising source of campaign revenue, “Few casual observers would have ever envisioned that this political sea change would come from seemingly nonpolitical social welfare nonprofits” (2254). Likening the resemblance of “veiled political actors” to “matryoshka dolls,” he quotes Elizabeth Garrett and Daniel Smith of the Midwestern Political Science Association in saying, “each layer is removed only to find another layer obscuring the real source of money” (2255).

Kalanick, Cory G. “Blowing Up The Pipes: The Use Of (C) (4) To Dismantle Campaign Finance Reform.” Minnesota Law Review 95.6 (2011): 2254-2284. Academic Search Premier. Web. 21 April 2015.

2b. Deborah Hellman, the Jacob France Research Professor and Professor of Law at the University of Maryland School of Law, analyzes the Citizens United ruling by majority Supreme Court Justices in her article “Money Talks but It Isn’t Speech,” featured in the Minnesota Law Review. In Part I of her argument summary, Hellman acknowledges that “Giving and spending money can also be expressive,” but goes on to note, “not all giving and spending of money should be seen as expressive enough to raise the specter of the First Amendment” (965,966).

Hellman, Deborah. “Money Talks But It Isn't Speech.” Minnesota Law Review 95.3 (2011): 953-1002. Academic Search Premier. Web. 21 April 2015.

3. All citations listed in answers 1 and 2 come from scholarly journal articles.

4. Five peer reviewed articles that relate to my topic:

Chen, Li. "Public Funding After Davis V. FEC: Is Campaign Finance Reform in the States Still Legally Viable?” George Mason University Civil Rights Law Journal 20.2 (2010): 279-314. Academic Search Premier. Web. 3 May 2015.

Johnstone, Anthony. "A Madisonian Case For Disclosure." George Mason Law Review 19.2 (2012): 413-469. Academic Search Premier. Web. 3 May 2015.

Spencer, Andrew. "Cleaning Elections." Arizona Law Review 54.1 (2012): 277-309. Academic Search Premier. Web. 3 May 2015.

Udall, Senator Tom. "Amend The Constitution To Restore Public Trust In The Political System: A Practitioner's Perspective On Campaign Finance Reform." Yale Law & Policy Review 29.1 (2010): 235-252. Academic Search Premier. Web. 3 May 2015.

Vogel, Glen M. "Clinton, Campaigns, And Corporate Expenditures: The Supreme Court's Recent Decision In Citizen's United And Its Impact On Corporate Political Influence." St. John's Law Review 86.1 (2012): 183-210. Academic Search Premier. Web. 3 May 2015.

5. Five citations for images pertinent to my topic are listed below. I am including the links for personal reference only.

Kroll, Andy. Mother Jones. “No Names, Please: Disclosure of donors to outside-spending groups, 1990-2010.” July 2010. Web. 3 May 2015.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/06/history-money-american-elections?page=3

Morris, David. Institute for Local Self-Reliance. “Presidential Campaign Costs (In 2011 Dollars).” 29 March 2012. Web. 3 May 2015.

http://ilsr.org/rule/campaign/

Olsen-Phillips, Peter, Russ Choma, Sarah Bryner, Doug Weber. Center For Responsive Politics. “Partisanship of contributions from the 1% of the 1%.” 30 April 2015. Web. 3 May 2015.

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2015/04/the-political-one-percent-of-the-one-percent-in-2014-mega-donors-fuel-rising-cost-of-elections/

“Total Contribution Receipts for Presidential Candidates.” Project America. Project America. 15 Sept. 2008. Web. 3 May 2015.

http://www.project.org/info.php?recordID=155

Wang, Marian. Propublica. “Breakdown of Independent Expenditures by Spender.” 9 Nov. 2011. Web. 3 May 2015. 

http://www.propublica.org/article/fec-data-show-rise-of-super-pacs-and-outside-spending