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.