Campaign Finance Reform
Campaign finance laws can be crafted to promote more open, honest, and accountable government and to bring the constitutional ideal of political equality closer to reality. The Brennan Center supports disclosure requirements that inform voters about potential influences on elected officials, contribution limits that help to mitigate the real and perceived influence of donors on those officials, and public funding that preserves the significance of voters' voices in the political process and levels the playing field among serious candidates, regardless of their wealth or wealthy connections. A combination of well-crafted reforms, including public funding of judicial, legislative, and executive elections, could enhance the speech of millions of Americans who today are locked out of true political participation The Brennan Center defends federal, state, and local campaign finance and public funding laws in courts across the country. We also give legal guidance and support to state and local campaign finance reformers through informative publications, direct counseling, legislative drafting, and testimony in support of reform proposals.
This case is the sixth challenge to Arizona’s optional system of full public financing for people seeking state office.
North Carolina Right to Life Committee Fund for Independent Political Expenditures v. Leake
The Brennan Center is intervening to help defend the nation’s first voluntary full public financing program for judicial elections.
Davis v. Federal Election Commission
This case challenges a provision of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA) known as the Millionaire’s Amendment that raises the limits on contributions to congressional candidates if their opponent spends above a threshold amount of $350,000 of personal funds on his or her campaign.
The Public Financing Landscape
The Fourth Circuit recently delivered some good news for public financing advocates…
Presidential Public Funding, Extreme Makeover Edition
While the primary elections are winding down, the money primary will continue until the party conventions in August and the official start of the general election....
Protecting the Rights of Millionaires
The US Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday in a campaign finance case, Davis v. FEC. This Court has had a rather ominous track record on campaign finance reform....
Illustrations by Risko
Federal Appeals Court Upholds North Carolina’s Judicial Public Funding Law
Fourth Circuit Panel Affirms Dismissal: State citizens concerned about fair and impartial courts celebrated a major victory today in their defense of the state’s landmark public funding program for appellate court candidates.
“Public Funding: The Good The Bad And The Ugly”
Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano speaks about money in politics at Brennan Center’s first annual Living Constitution lecture.
Surge in Political Spending By Outside Groups Draws Scrutiny of Legal Limits
New Brennan Center Playbook Explains Impact of Supreme Court Campaign Finance Decision on States and Judicial Elections
Comments on FEC Notice 2007-16 Regarding Electioneering Communications
National campaign finance reform advocates urged the FEC to limit exemptions to funding restrictions and retain existing disclosure of electioneering communications.
Testimony to the New York City Council on Proposed “Pay-to-Play” Regulations
Ciara Torres-Spelliscy assessed the constitutionality of the city’s proposal to limit campaign contributions from lobbyists and city contractors.
Testimony to South Carolina State Senate
Ciara Torres-Spelliscy provided a constitutional perspective on the Senate’s full public financing proposal.
New York Set a Shameful Example
Gov. David Paterson’s unsurprising answer to the $55,900 question—whether or not to abide by his predecessor’s self-imposed $10,000 campaign contribution limit—was met with mostly shrugs last week, with the notable exception of the editorial page of this paper.
Money and Politics: The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly
Remarks from the Governor of Arizona at the Brennan Center’s first Living Constitution Lecture
The Impact of FEC v. WRTL II on State Regulation
The Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law repeatedly has been asked to explain what the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., 127 S. Ct. 2652 (2007) (“WRTL II”), means for state regulation of electioneering communications.