Preferencje help
Widoczny [Schowaj] Abstrakt
Liczba wyników
2017 | nr 14 | 115--136
Tytuł artykułu

Does the U.S. Campaign Finance System Favor Republicans?

Warianty tytułu
Języki publikacji
There is a common belief that the pro-regulatory approach of Democrats, makes them more determined in the fight against big money in campaign elections, whereas Republicans, supporting recent Supreme Court decisions in Citizens United v. F.E.C. and McCutcheon v. F.E.C., benefit from the system more than their political counterparts. The aim of the article is to analyze the real character of the U.S. campaign finance regulations, both from legislative and judicial perspective, and to determine which political party benefits from the system: Republican or Democratic? By underlining the Buckley rule that 'money is speech' the Author suggests that campaign contributions and spending are deeply rooted in the character of American political system determining the political future of candidates of both political parties. The article refers to election cycles since 1970s, but it mainly focuses on recent election cycles, including the 2016 presidential election. (original abstract)
Opis fizyczny
  • Jagiellonian University in Kraków, Poland
  • Abraham, R.J. (2010). Saving Buckley. Creating a Stable Campaign Finance Framework. Columbia Law Review, 110(4): 1078-122.
  • Adamany, D.W., & Agree, G.E. (1975). Political Money. A Strategy for Campaign Financing in America. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
  • Alexander, H.E., & Haggerty, B.A. (1981). The Federal Election Campaign Act. After a Decade of Political Reform. Los Angeles, CA: Citizens' Research Foundation.
  • Amendments to Federal Election Campaign Act 88 Stat. 1263, 1974.
  • Amendments to Federal Election Campaign Act 90 Stat. 475, 1976.
  • Amendments to Federal Election Campaign Act 93 Stat. 1339, 1980.
  • Bailey, T.A. (1981). Presidential Saints and Sinners, New York, NY: Free Press.
  • Bell, C.W. (2015). A Constitutional Amendment Allowing Broader Campaign - Finance Reform Would Not Criminize Political Satire. St. Mary's Law Journal, 47(1): 187-217.
  • Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (An Act to Amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to Provide Bipartisan Campaign Reform) 116 Stat. 81, 2002.
  • Black, S.N. (2015). Money Motives. Finding the Balance Between Freedom of Speech and Campaign Finance Regulation. Oklahoma City University Law Review, 40(2): 481-501.
  • Blumenthal, S. (1982). The Permanent Campaign. New York, NY: Free Press.
  • Boatright R.G. (2014). Interest Groups and Campaign Finance Reform in the United States and Canada. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
  • Buckley v. Valeo 424 U.S. 1, 1976.
  • CFI, President Trump, with RNC Help, Raised More Small Donor Money than President Obama; As Much as Clinton and Sanders Combined. (15.06.2017).
  • Citizens United v. F.E.C.558 U.S. 310.
  • Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. F.E.C. 518 U.S. 604, 1996.
  • Corrado, A. (2010). Fund-raising Strategies in the 2008 Presidential Campaign. In: J.A. Thurber, & C.J. Nelson (eds.), Campaigns and Elections American Style. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 105-35.
  • Corrado, A. (2005). Money and Politics. A History of Federal Campaign Finance Law. In: A. Corrado, et. al. (eds.), The New Campaign Finance Sourcebook, Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 7-47.
  • CRP, 2012 Top Donors to Outside Spending Groups. (15.06.2017).
  • CRP, 2014 Top Donors to Outside Spending Groups. (15.06.2017).
  • CRP, 2016 Outside Spending, by Candidate. (15.06.2017).
  • CRP, 2016 Presidential Race. (15.06.2017).
  • CRP, 527s: Advocacy Group Spending, (15.06.2017).
  • CRP, Cost of Election. (15.06.2017).
  • CRP, Donor Demographics. (15.06.2017).
  • CRP, Outside Spending. (15.06.2017).
  • CRP, SuperPACs. (15.06.2017).
  • CRP, Top Individual Contributors: All Federal Contributions. (15.06.2017).
  • Davis v. F.E.C. 554 U.S. 724, 2008.
  • Drutman, L. (2016). The Rise of Dark Money. In: A.J. Cigler, B.A. Loomis, & A.J. Nownes (eds.), Interest Group Politics, Washington D.C.: CQ Press.
  • Farrar-Myers, F.A., Dwyre, D. (2007). Limits, and Loopholes: The Quest for Money, Free Speech, and Fair Elections. Washington D.C.: CQ Press.
  • Farias, C. (2015). Americans Agree on One Thing: Citizens United Is Terrible. (15.06.2017).
  • F.E.C. v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee 533 U.S. 431, 2001.
  • F.E.C. v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life 479 U.S. 238, 1986.
  • F.E.C. v. National Conservative Political Action Committee 470 U.S. 480, 1985.
  • F.E.C. v. Wisconsin Right to Life551 U.S. 449, 2007.
  • Federal Election Campaign Act (An Act to Promote Fair Practices in the Conduct of Election Campaigns for Federal Political Offices, and for Other Purposes) 86 Stat. 3, 1971.
  • Federal Corrupt Practices Act, 43 Stat. 1070, 1925.
  • FEC, Coordinated Communications and Independent Expenditures.
Typ dokumentu
Identyfikator YADDA

Zgłoszenie zostało wysłane

Zgłoszenie zostało wysłane

Musisz być zalogowany aby pisać komentarze.
JavaScript jest wyłączony w Twojej przeglądarce internetowej. Włącz go, a następnie odśwież stronę, aby móc w pełni z niej korzystać.