Money in Politics: Toward a New Jurisprudence
McCutcheon v. FEC marked the seventh time since 2006 that the Supreme Court has struck down a campaign finance regulation as unconstitutional. Rising to this challenge, last May the Brennan Center hosted a convening of distinguished legal scholars and advocates to fundamentally rethink the framework for regulating money in politics. Entitled Money in Politics 2030: Toward a New Jurisprudence, this gathering inspired our collaboration with the New York University Law Review on an online symposium to explore and develop a new constitutional doctrine governing money in American elections.
That conversation continues here. Below you will find an ongoing discussion animated by the ideas raised by the convening and symposium. Check back often as the conversation evolves and we continue toward a new constitutional vision for the 21st century.
By placing the activities of voting and contributing in a common matrix of participation, the McCutcheon Court has demoted the right to vote from its usual position as the most fundamental democratic right.
How can new technologies be used to help expand participation in the democratic process?
Empirical evidence undermines the assumptions that the major political parties have been weakened by campaign finance regulation.
Institutional solutions to our electoral problems require developing a much more serious and realistic understanding of how we would like our politics of representation to work.
The Ohio State University's Daniel P. Tokaji writes that the impact of judicial deregulation on the ground is at least as important as discussions of legal doctrine.
Reforming the landscape of campaign finance is a long road.
Free Speech for People's John Bonifaz on the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.
The Supreme Court has disavowed precedent that permitted government to correct distortions in the political marketplace, particularly those caused by accumulated wealth.
This online symposium represents a collaboration between the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law and the New York University Law Review.
By equating the right to contribute with the more egalitarian rights of political participation, the McCutcheon Court moves closer to the view that the domains of politics and of the market need not be kept apart.
We lack participatory institutions that enable average Americans to engage in politics and governance, and a conception of the First Amendment broad enough to encourage and protect such collective efforts.
Technological fixes come with their own new set of challenges, introducing new avenues for manipulation and distortion.
Electoral integrity" is simply a variation on a theme that has existed at least since the 1976 case of Buckley v. Valeo: a public confidence argument for campaign finance limitations.
Redirecting campaign cash to political parties is desirable because candidates and parties represent a more responsible and accountable alternative to independent expenditure groups.
Demos' Seth Endo writes that the disproportionate influence of very wealthy individuals and corporations on the political process matters to everyday citizens.
A new jurisprudence on campaign finance requires a greatly expanded approach to the definition of "corruption."
Is contributing to a candidate's campaign a right equal to the rights to vote or run for office?
Since Buckley, SCOTUS has failed to appreciate the need for regulation to ensure an open marketplace of ideas.