Outline

Christina Aga

English 102 – 1:00 p.m. Section

Dr. Sonia Apgar Begert

1 June 2015

Campaign Finance Reform Outline:

I)       Introduction: I give a brief overview of topic, followed by my thesis statement:

a)      The U.S. Supreme Court deregulates campaign finance restrictions for corporations and unions in the McCutcheon V. Federal Election Commission ruling in 2010.

i)       The justices in the court majority overturned pre-existing law in order to legalize electioneering communications from corporations and unions. (Gilpatrick)

ii)     Corporations and unions given protection under constitutional right to free speech clause of First Amendment; corporations and unions tantamount to persons. (Hellman)

iii)   The justices in the court majority redefined ‘corruption’ in the eyes of the law.

(1)   The law no longer identifies access and ingratiation as corrupt activities. A corrupt campaign finance activity must be quid pro quo, per the Citizens United ruling. (Gerken)

iv)    Disclosure requirements remain intact.

b)     The Supreme Court deregulates campaign finance restrictions by eliminating aggregate campaign contribution limits in McCutcheon V. Federal Election Commission in 2014. (Rosen)

i)       The ceiling for aggregate campaign contributions was eliminated; individuals, corporations, NGOs and super PACs may use general treasury funds to contribute to an unlimited number of candidates and parties. (Gerken)

(1)   Disclosure requirements remain intact.

c)      Thesis Statement:  The likely implications of the U.S. Supreme Court rulings in Citizens United V. FEC and McCutcheon V. FEC regarding campaign contribution limits and corporate political participation will open the door to undue influence from shadow parties, veiled political actors, and allow for special interest groups to avoid contribution disclosure requirements by exploiting the advantages of non-profit status.

II)     History:  In order to better understand the implications of both Supreme Court rulings, a brief history of campaign finance jurisprudence is reviewed.     

a)      Citizens United partially or completely overturned previous Supreme Court rulings and federal acts.

i)       Buckley V. Valeo, a landmark case ruled in 1976, laid the foundation for modern day campaign finance regulation, whereby monetary contributions is designated as a form of protected speech. (Haan)

ii)     Austin V. Michigan Chamber of Commerce of 1990 prohibited corporations from using funds to make political expenditures that either support or undermine a political candidate. (Hasen)

iii)   Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, an act whose key features included a ban on “soft money” donations, the solicitation of those donations by elected officials, electioneering communications ban by corporations, non-profits, and unions within 60 days of a federal election and restrictions on political party activity with regard to issue ads. (Rosen)

iv)    McConnell V. FEC upheld constitutionality of the BCRA in 2003. (Hellman)

III)   Political actors: the formal and non-formal structure of political players in the United States.

a)      Formal bipartisan system: republicans and democrats.

i)       The formal party nomination process. (Gerken)

ii)     The difference between campaign expenditures vs. contributions. (Gerken)

b)     The role of political action committees.

i)       Examples of conflicts of interest between super PACs and candidates. (Pursely)

c)      The role of not-for-profit organizations in the political sphere.

i)       Use of 301(c) (4) status. (Kalanick)

d)     Shadow parties and non-formal political groups. (Gerken)

IV)   The implications of Citizens United and McCutcheon. (Campbell)

a)      Scenarios of legal political coercion at the workplace. (Harvard Law Review’s “Citizens United at Work”)

b)     A review of political expenditures after Citizens United and McCutcheon was passed. (Krumholz; Vogel)

V)    The tone of the Roberts Court: forecasting the deregulation of mandatory disclosure requirements. (Carney)

a)      Cases of discrimination and harassment for campaign contributions. (Ornstein)

VI)   Coping with current campaign finance legislation: options for candidates. (Johnstone)

a)      Clean elections systems and the Arizona state model. (Spencer)

b)     Self-enforcing private contracts. (Sitaraman)

VII)  Conclusion:  The rulings in McCutcheon and Citizens United were erroneously based on a flawed view of the freedom of speech clause of the First Amendment. These rulings will do more harm than good to campaign finance reform and will allow for only the most independently wealthy or morally flexible candidates to be elected. Lawrence Lessig ponders this very question and wonders, “How could we believe that the thickness of one’s wallet is the metric of citizenship?” (TED)