Campaign finance reform in the United States

994:, gives each candidate who chooses to participate a certain, set amount of money. In order to qualify for this money, the candidates must collect a specified number of signatures and small (usually $ 5) contributions. The candidates are not allowed to accept outside donations or to use their own personal money if they receive this public funding. Candidates receive matching funds, up to a limit, when they are outspent by privately funded candidates, attacked by independent expenditures, or their opponent benefits from independent expenditures. This is the primary difference between clean money public financing systems and the presidential campaign system, which many have called "broken" because it provides no extra funds when candidates are attacked by 527s or other independent expenditure groups. Supporters claim that Clean Elections matching funds are so effective at leveling the playing field in Arizona that during the first full year of its implementation, disproportionate funding between candidates was a factor in only 2% of the races. The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in 704:

strict conflict of interest laws and requires state and local agency officials who frequently donate to campaigns to publicly disclose personal financial information. Anonymous contributions over $ 100 were also banned, as well as mandated extensive campaign disclosure information to promote transparency surrounding donors to political campaigns. The Political Reform Act also enacted laws to minimize incumbent advantage, like prohibiting mass mailings as a public expense. However, some of these laws have been altered through court or regulatory action. Finally, the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) was created to ensure the enforcement of these laws, which previously did not happen as there was no regulatory body for campaign finance laws. In addition to the creation of the FPPC, the Franchise Tax Board regularly performs audits on political campaign finance statements. All of these components work together to ensure the transparency of political campaign finances in the state of California.

933:

primary and general elections. At the end of the current election cycle any unspent portions of this voucher would expire and could not be rolled over to subsequent elections for that voter. In the context of the 2004 election cycle $ 50 multiplied by the approximately 120 million people who voted would have yielded about $ 6 billion in "public financing" compared to the approximate $ 4 billion spent in 2004 for all federal elections (House, Senate and Presidential races) combined. Ackerman and Ayres argue that this system would pool voter money and force candidates to address issues of importance to a broad spectrum of voters. Additionally they argue this public finance scheme would address taxpayers' concerns that they have "no say" in where public financing monies are spent, whereas in the Voting with dollars system each taxpayer who votes has discretion over their contribution.

948:

the money and distributes it directly to the campaigns in randomized chunks over a number of days. Ackerman and Ayres compare this system to the reforms adopted in the late 19th century aimed to prevent vote buying, which led to our current secret ballot process. Prior to that time voting was conducted openly, allowing campaigns to confirm that voters cast ballots for the candidates they had been paid to support. Ackerman and Ayres contend that if candidates do not know for sure who is contributing to their campaigns they are unlikely to take unpopular stances to court large donors which could jeopardize donations flowing from voter vouchers. Conversely, large potential donors will not be able to gain political access or favorable legislation in return for their contributions since they cannot prove to candidates the supposed extent of their financial support.

799:, it held that certain advertisements might be constitutionally entitled to an exception from the 'electioneering communications' provisions of McCain-Feingold limiting broadcast ads that merely mention a federal candidate within 60 days of an election. On remand, a lower court then held that certain ads aired by Wisconsin Right to Life in fact merited such an exception. The Federal Election Commission appealed that decision, and in June 2007, the Supreme Court held in favor of Wisconsin Right to Life. In an opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court declined to overturn the electioneering communications limits in their entirety, but established a broad exemption for any ad that could have a reasonable interpretation as an ad about legislative issues. 969:. As of February 2008, there were fears that this system provided a safety net for losers in these races, as shown by loan taken out by John McCain's campaign that used the promise of matching funds as collateral. However, in February 2009 the Federal Election Commission found no violation of the law because McCain permissibly withdrew from the Matching Payment Program and thus was released from his obligations. It also found no reason to believe that a violation occurred as a result of the Committee's reporting of McCain's loan. The Commission closed the files. 558:

that "contributions by corporations to any political committee or for any political purpose should be forbidden by law." The proposal, however, included no restrictions on campaign contributions from the private individuals who owned and ran corporations. Roosevelt also called for public financing of federal candidates via their political parties. The movement for a national law to require disclosure of campaign expenditures, begun by the National Publicity Law Association, was supported by Roosevelt but delayed by Congress for a decade.

1050:(which generally opposes regulation and taxpayer funded political campaigns), found that the programs in Maine, Arizona, and New Jersey had failed to accomplish their stated goals, including electing more women, reducing government spending, reducing special interest influence on elections, bringing more diverse backgrounds into the legislature, or meeting most other stated objectives, including increasing competition or voter participation. These reports confirmed the results of an earlier study by the conservative/libertarian 52: 842:

would have imposed new donor and contribution disclosure requirements on nearly all organizations that air political ads independently of candidates or the political parties. The legislation would have required the sponsor of the ad to appear in the ad itself. President Obama argued that the bill would reduce foreign influence over American elections. Democrats needed at least one Republican to support the measure in order to get the 60 votes to overcome GOP procedural delays, but were unsuccessful.

675:(R-AR), would have banned soft money, which was not yet regulated and could be spent on ads that did not petition for the election or defeat of a specific candidate, and raised limits on hard money. The Citizen Legislature & Political Act sponsored by Rep. John Doolittle (R-CA) would have repealed all federal freedom act contribution limits and expedited and expanded disclosure (H.R. 1922 in 1999, the 106th Congress, and reintroduced with different numbers through 2007, the 110th Congress). The 1349:

imposed on what one can give—but rather on what one can get in return. (Needless to say, if such additional limitations could be introduced, many of the special interests would contribute much less than they currently do, and the effects of the remaining contributions would be much less corrupting). Currently quid pro quo is considered a bribery only if the person who provided material incentives to a public official explicitly tied those on receiving a specific favor in return.

1421:

nonresidents, their interests may conflict in fundamental respects with the interests of eligible voters. The financial resources, legal structure, and instrumental orientation of corporations raise legitimate concerns about their role in the electoral process. Our lawmakers have a compelling constitutional basis, if not also a democratic duty, to take measures designed to guard against the potentially deleterious effects of corporate spending in local and national races.

2916:"Text - S.J.Res.33 - 112th Congress (2011-2012): A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to expressly exclude for-profit corporations from the rights given to natural persons by the Constitution of the United States, prohibit corporate spending in all elections, and affirm the authority of Congress and the States to regulate corporations and to regulate and set limits on all election contributions and expenditures" 502:, but recognized that more would be needed to fund the general election campaign. Hanna systematized fund-raising from the business community. He assessed banks 0.25% of their capital, and corporations were assessed in relation to their profitability and perceived stake in the prosperity of the country. McKinley's run became the prototype of the modern commercial advertising campaign, putting the President-to-be's image on 1435: 237: 856: 326: 455:. In the absence of a civil service system, parties also continued to rely heavily on financial support from government employees, including assessments of a portion of their federal pay. The first federal campaign finance law, passed in 1867, was a Naval Appropriations Bill which prohibited officers and government employees from soliciting contributions from Navy yard workers. Later, the 929:. All voters would be given a $ 50 publicly funded voucher to donate to federal political campaigns. All donations including both the $ 50 voucher and additional private contributions, must be made anonymously through the FEC. Ackerman and Ayres include model legislation in their book in addition to detailed discussion as to how such a system could be achieved and its legal basis. 982:

public funds. This creates a more direct relationship between candidates and their constituents and incentivizes them to reach a more diverse audience of constituents. It was also proposed that candidates would have a contribution limit of $ 1,250 from individual donors, if they opt into the public campaign financing system. This bill was proposed but was never enacted into law.

1393:, 540 U.S. 93 (2003), that upheld BCRA's restriction of corporate spending on "electioneering communications". The Court's ruling effectively freed corporations and unions to spend money both on "electioneering communications" and to directly advocate for the election or defeat of candidates (although not to contribute directly to candidates or political parties). 553:, following President McKinley's assassination of 1901, began trust-busting and anti-corporate-influence activities, but fearing defeat, turned to bankers and industrialists for support in what turned out to be his 1904 landslide campaign. Roosevelt was embarrassed by his corporate financing and was unable to clear a suspicion of a quid pro quo exchange with 724:. The bill was passed by the House of Representatives on February 14, 2002, with 240 yeas and 189 nays, including 6 members who did not vote. Final passage in the Senate came after supporters mustered the bare minimum of 60 votes needed to shut off debate. The bill passed the Senate, 60–40 on March 20, 2002, and was signed into law by 1034:) have some form of limited financial assistance for candidates, but New Jersey's experiment with Clean Elections was ended in 2008, in part due to a sense that the program failed to accomplish its goals. Wisconsin and Minnesota have had partial public funding since the 1970s, but the systems have largely fallen into disuse. 297:") to national political parties and limited the use of corporate and union money to fund ads discussing political issues within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary election; However, provisions of BCRA limiting corporate and union expenditures for issue advertising were overturned by the Supreme Court in 699:

California under greater public scrutiny and minimizing corruption. This act has six components that aid in improving campaign funding transparency. First, mandatory spending limits were placed on candidates running for state office and ballot measure committees. However, this was ruled unconstitutional by the

1376:

majority opinion found that the BCRA §203 prohibition of all independent expenditures by corporations and unions violated the First Amendment's protection of free speech. The majority wrote, "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations

951:

In 2015, Seattle voters approved the Democracy Vouchers Program, which gives city residents four $ 25 vouchers to donate to participating candidates. Vouchers have been proposed in other cities and states as a means to diversify the donor pool, help more candidates run for office, and boost political

785:

Since then, campaign finance limitations continued to be challenged in the Courts. In 2005 in Washington state, Thurston County Judge Christopher Wickham ruled that media articles and segments were considered in-kind contributions under state law. The heart of the matter focused on the I-912 campaign

651:

In 1986, several bills were killed in the U.S. Senate by bipartisan maneuvers which did not allow the bills to come up for a vote. The bill would impose strict controls for campaign fund raising. Later in 1988, legislative and legal setbacks on proposals designed to limit overall campaign spending by

947:

The second aspect of the system increases some private donation limits, but all contributions must be made anonymously through the FEC. In this system, when a contributor makes a donation to a campaign, they send their money to the FEC, indicating to which campaign they want it to go. The FEC masks

435:

was one of the great struggles between democracy and the money power. While it was rumored that The Bank of the United States spent over $ 40,000 from 1830 to 1832 in an effort to stop Jackson's re-election, Chairman Biddle of the BUS only spent "tens of thousands to distribute information favorable

1474:

On April 2, 2014, the Supreme Court issued a 5–4 ruling that the 1971 FECA's aggregate limits restricting how much money a donor may contribute in total to all candidates or committees violated the First Amendment. The controlling opinion was written by Chief Justice Roberts, and joined by Justices

1442:

The effects of the ruling can be seen in the amount of spending and money raised after this decision. The largest donation from an organization before this ruling was over 14 million just in 2008 with the average around 9 million from the year 2000- 2010. Subsequently starting at election year 2012

1425:

Justice Stevens also wrote: "The Court’s ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation. The path it has taken to reach its outcome will, I fear, do damage to this institution. Before turning to the question whether to overrule Austin and part of McConnell, it

1420:

In the context of election to public office, the distinction between corporate and human speakers is significant. Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it. They cannot vote or run for office. Because they may be managed and controlled by

1348:

A different approach would allow private contributions as they currently are; however it would severely penalize those who gain substantive, material favors in exchange for their contributions and those who grant such favors in exchange for receiving contributions. Thus new limitations would not be

703:

supreme court decision. This court case ruled limiting the expenditures of political campaigns and their committees unconstitutional, except for presidential candidates. This proposition also restricted lobbyists from donating to political campaigns and placed a $ 10 gift limit. It also established

698:

was enacted in the state of California in 1974, in order to provide greater transparency surrounding political campaign funding. Post watergate, many people were concerned about government corruption and wanted to "put an end to it". The enactment of this law made campaign financing in the state of

1414:

has rhetorical appeal, it is not a correct statement of the law. Nor does it tell us when a corporation may engage in electioneering that some of its shareholders oppose. It does not even resolve the specific question whether Citizens United may be required to finance some of its messages with the

981:

was a legislative bill proposed by Representative David Price (D-NC) and Representative Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) that was modeled after a small donor campaign funding program in New York City. Donations upto $ 250 from individual donors would be matched and adjusted with inflation at a 5:1 ratio to

932:

Of the Patriot dollars (i.e. $ 50 per voter) given to voters to allocate, they propose $ 25 going to presidential campaigns, $ 15 to Senate campaigns, and $ 10 to House campaigns. Within those restrictions the voucher can be split among any number of candidates for any federal race and between the

557:

for what was an eventually unfulfilled ambassador nomination. There was a resulting national call for reform, but Roosevelt claimed that it was legitimate to accept large contributions if there were no implied obligation. However, in his 1905 message to Congress following the election, he proposed

1455:

In a Washington Post-ABC News poll in early February 2010 it was found that roughly 80% of Americans were opposed to the January 2010 Supreme court's ruling. The poll reveals relatively little difference of opinion on the issue among Democrats (85 percent opposed to the ruling), Republicans (76

1304:

decision that equated money spent on political speech with the speech itself (thus giving such spending First Amendment protection), CFR28 specifically targets independent political advertising for elimination. It does this by defining advertising as uninvited media that costs more than the limit

1089:

on November 18, 2011. The OCCUPIED amendment would outlaw the use of for-profit corporation money in U.S. election campaigns and give Congress and states the authority to create a public campaign finance system. Unions and non-profit organizations will still be able to contribute to campaigns. On

1041:

of 2002 ("McCain–Feingold") required the nonpartisan General Accounting Office to conduct a study of clean elections programs in Arizona and Maine. The report, issued in May 2003, found none of the objectives of the systems had yet been attained, but cautioned that because of the relatively short

964:

for the first chunk of donations. For instance, the government might "match" the first $ 250 of every donation. This would effectively make small donations more valuable to a campaign, potentially leading them to put more effort into pursuing such donations, which are believed to have less of a

841:

The DISCLOSE Act (S. 3628) was proposed in July 2010. The bill would have amended the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to prohibit government contractors from making expenditures with respect to such elections, and establish additional disclosure requirements for election spending. The bill

486:

mastered post-Pendleton Act corporate funding through extortionist tactics, such as squeeze bills (legislation threatening to tax or regulate business unless funds were contributed.) During his successful 1896 U.S. Senate campaign, he raised a quarter million dollars within 48 hours. He allegedly

306:

Contributions, donations or payments to politicians or political parties, including a campaign committee, newsletter fund, advertisements in convention bulletins, admission to dinners or programs that benefit a political party or political candidate and a political action committee (PAC), are not

744:

donations to the national party committees, but it also doubled the contribution limit of hard money, from $ 1,000 to $ 2,000 per election cycle, with a built-in increase for inflation. In addition, the bill aimed to curtail ads by non-party organizations by banning the use of corporate or union

1396:

The majority argued that the First Amendment protects associations of individuals as well as individual speakers, and further that the First Amendment does not allow prohibitions of speech based on the identity of the speaker. Corporations, as associations of individuals, therefore have speech

728:

on March 27, 2002. In signing the law, Bush expressed concerns about the constitutionality of parts of the legislation but concluded, "I believe that this legislation, although far from perfect, will improve the current financing system for Federal campaigns." The bill was the first significant

1296:

First, CFR28 restricts candidate funding to consist of small citizen contributions and public financing. These citizen contribution limits are set biannually at one percent of the median annual income of all Americans (currently less than $ 400), so limits adjust with inflation. However, these

430:

system that rewarded political party operatives, which had a profound effect on future elections. Eventually, appointees were expected to contribute portions of their pay back to the political party. During the Jacksonian era, some of the first attempts were made by corporations to influence

655:

In 1994, Senate Democrats had more bills blocked by Republicans including a bill setting spending limits and authorizing partial public financing of congressional elections. In 1996, bipartisan legislation for voluntary spending limits which rewards those who bare soft money was killed by a

1380:

Justice Kennedy's opinion for the majority also noted that since the First Amendment (and the Court) do not distinguish between media and other corporations, these restrictions would allow Congress to suppress political speech in newspapers, books, television and blogs. The Court overruled

786:

to repeal a fuel tax, and specifically two broadcasters for Seattle conservative talker KVI. Judge Wickham's ruling was eventually overturned on appeal in April 2007, with the Washington Supreme Court holding that on-air commentary was not covered by the State's campaign finance laws (

1025:, although Portland's was repealed by voter initiative in 2010. Sixty-nine percent of the voters in Albuquerque voted yes to Clean Elections. A 2006 poll showed that 85% of Arizonans familiar with their Clean Elections system thought it was important to Arizona voters. However, a 1451:

Senator McCain, one of the two original sponsors of campaign finance reform, noted after the decisions that "campaign finance reform is dead" – but predicted a voter backlash once it became obvious how much money corporations and unions now could and would pour into campaigns.

1094:

also introduced a constitutional amendment in Congress to reform campaign finance which would allow Congress and state legislatures to establish public campaign finance. Two other constitutional campaign finance reform amendments were introduced in Congress in November 2011.

1196:

during both congresses. During the 113th Congress the resolution received 129 co-sponsors in the House (all Democrats), and 48 co-sponsors in the Senate (46 Democrats, 2 Independents). In the Senate, the resolution was never voted on, and in the House, it was sent to the

745:

money to pay for "electioneering communications", defined as broadcast advertising that identifies a federal candidate within 30 days of a primary or nominating convention, or 60 days of a general election. This provision of McCain–Feingold, sponsored by Maine Republican

459:

of 1883 established the civil service and extended the protections of the Naval Appropriations Bill to all federal civil service workers. However, this loss of a major funding source increased pressure on parties to solicit funding from corporate and individual wealth.

1305:

mentioned above. This definition still allows unlimited spending on news, commentary and entertainment about candidates, but the audience will only see such media if they choose to after being told who is sponsoring it. All other speech about candidates is unlimited.

1409:

The basic premise underlying the Court’s ruling is its iteration, and constant reiteration, of the proposition that the First Amendment bars regulatory distinctions based on a speaker’s identity, including its "identity" as a corporation. While that

1387:, 494 U.S. 652 (1990), which had held that a state law that prohibited corporations from using treasury money to support or oppose candidates in elections did not violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court also overruled that portion of 1328:

CFR28's implementing provisions include preventing subsidies and interference in citizen choices to help candidates, and allows unlimited volunteering for candidates. It also has reporting requirements and mandates that Congress enact relevant laws

525:

advocates, together with journalists and political satirists, argued to the general public that the policies of vote buying and excessive corporate and moneyed influence were abandoning the interests of millions of taxpayers. They advocated strong

1320:

decision, which allows candidates themselves to spend unlimited personal funds on their campaigns. And by preventing donors from giving to candidates outside their voting district or state (except for the President), it also voids the decision in

944:. It ignores tax loopholes and regulatory and trade decisions, encouraging business mergers and other activities that can stifle competition, creativity and economic growth; the direct subsidies can be a tiny fraction of these indirect costs. 471:

supporter alone contributed one fourth of the total finances. One historian said that never before was a candidate under such a great obligation to men of wealth. Vote buying and voter coercion were common in this era. After more standardized

1198: 1042:

time the programs had been in place, "it is too soon to determine the extent to which the goals of Maine’s and Arizona’s public financing programs are being met... We are not making any recommendations in this report." A 2006 study by the

1114:' national coordinator. Lessig's initial constitutional amendment would allow legislatures to limit political contributions from non-citizens, including corporations, anonymous organizations, and foreign nationals, and he also supports 1046:(an advocate for campaign finance reform) found that Clean Elections programs resulted in more candidates, more competition, more voter participation, and less influence-peddling. In 2008, however, a series of studies conducted by the 1029:

in California was defeated by a wide margin at the November 2006 election, with just 25.7% in favor, 74.3% opposed, and in 2008 Alaska voters rejected a clean elections proposal by a two to one margin. Many other states (such as

1312:

At almost two pages and the first amendment with subsections, CFR28 is longer than other proposed constitutional amendments on campaign finances as it attempts to eliminate loopholes and provide some implementation provisions.

1077:, spreading across the United States and other nations with over 1,500 sites, called for U.S. campaign finance reform eliminating corporate influence on politics and reducing social and economic inequality. In response to the 1000:, however, cast considerable doubt on the constitutionality of these provisions, and in 2011 the Supreme Court held that key provisions of the Arizona law – most notably its matching fund provisions – were unconstitutional in 1308:

CFR28 further claims to prevent foreign influence on American elections because foreign sponsored media will not be able to hide among messaging from domestic super PACs since super PAC advertising will be eliminated.

3258: 1336:

In addition to providing the text of the proposed constitutional amendment, the CFR28.org web site explains it line-by-line both in writing and through several videos. It also includes a blog on related topics.

1415:

money in its PAC. The conceit that corporations must be treated identically to natural persons in the political sphere is not only inaccurate but also inadequate to justify the Court’s disposition of this case.

1184:. It would grant Congress and the States the ability to limit the raising and spending of money in campaigns for public office. It would also grant Congress and the States the ability to distinguish between a 1107: 916:

The voting with dollars plan would establish a system of modified public financing coupled with an anonymous campaign contribution process. It was originally described in detail by Yale Law School professors

570:

which prohibited corporations and nationally chartered (interstate) banks from making direct monetary contributions to federal candidates. However, weak enforcement mechanisms made the Act ineffective.

2879: 343: 795: 1165:

and the States to regulate corporations and to regulate and set limits on all election contributions and expenditures." The Saving American Democracy Amendment was meant to overturn the 2010

3251: 1365:, in January 2010, the US Supreme Court ruled that corporations and unions can not constitutionally be prohibited from promoting the election of one candidate over another candidate. 2007: 1859: 299: 3701: 3604: 2965: 3578: 3192: 1293:

CFR28 is a proposed constitutional amendment designed to deliver campaign finance reform without infringing on free speech. It claims to do this using two primary provisions.

764:

The law was challenged as unconstitutional by groups and individuals including the California State Democratic Party, the National Rifle Association, and Republican Senator

3244: 749:

and Vermont Independent James Jeffords, as introduced applied only to for-profit corporations, but was extended to incorporate non-profit issue organizations, such as the

1278: 640: 1273:, including those made by a candidate, and would require any permissible political contributions and expenditures to be publicly disclosed. It would also prohibit the 518:, were more than happy to give, and Hanna actually refunded or turned down what he considered to be "excessive" contributions that exceeded a business's assessment. 3151: 265: 2876: 2721: 1361: 1169: 823: 652:

candidates were shelved after a Republican filibuster. In addition, a constitutional amendment to override a Supreme Court decision failed to get off the ground.

436:

to the bank." This expenditure can be conceived as being spent "against" Jackson, because of the competing ideals of the Bank and Jackson's anti-bank platform.

2030: 814:, the Court also struck down Vermont's contribution limits as unconstitutionally low, the first time that the Court had ever struck down a contribution limit. 2796: 3643: 390: 2198: 362: 3609: 2811: 1282: 626:. Other provisions included limits on contributions to campaigns and expenditures by campaigns, individuals, corporations and other political groups. 1808: 3326: 1389: 369: 2573: 2520: 2546: 1443:

the amount of donations began to increase every election year with its current close at 2020 with 167 million dollars from a single organization.

1258: 2488: 1575: 281:

have been a contentious political issue since the early days of the union. The most recent major federal law affecting campaign finance was the

3511: 2626: 1383: 1262: 575: 376: 3267: 1786: 1731: 1707: 1652: 1512: 1497: 1266: 754: 1479:

limits on contributions were unconstitutional. Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Kagan and Sotomayor.

426:

launched his campaign for the 1828 election through a network of partisan newspapers across the nation. After his election, Jackson began a

3542: 1999: 1866: 1316:

As a loophole example, CFR28 disallows any funding source not authorized under CFR28 to eliminate all corporate funding and nullifying the

1166: 996: 802:

Also in 2006, the Supreme Court held that a Vermont law imposing mandatory limits on spending was unconstitutional, under the precedent of

2328: 827:

was decided in January 2010, the Supreme Court finding that §441b's restrictions on expenditures were invalid and could not be applied to

1482: 1233:

established by the laws of any state, the United States, or any foreign state — have no rights under the Constitution and are subject to

590:

set an annual ceiling of $ 3 million for political parties' campaign expenditures and $ 5,000 for individual campaign contributions. The

358: 3663: 258: 3568: 3558: 3441: 2181: 1558: 630: 456: 817:

In March 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments about whether or not the law could restrict advertising of a documentary about

3381: 3093: 3055: 3021: 2754: 1158: 1063: 898: 409: 965:

corrupting effect than larger gifts and enhance the power of less-wealthy individuals. Such a system is currently in place in the

876: 3648: 3614: 3550: 3471: 3466: 3446: 3165: 2066: 1628: 1026: 464: 432: 3125:

A 501tax-exempt, OpenSecrets; NW, charitable organization 1300 L. St; Washington, Suite 200; info, DC 20005 telelphone857-0044.

3573: 2849: 2577: 1895: 1119: 1047: 1043: 865: 2252: 610:

All of these efforts were largely ineffective, easily circumvented and rarely enforced. In 1971, however, Congress passed the

3431: 3426: 3301: 1686: 1568: 1038: 940:, estimated at $ 100 billion in the 2012 US federal budget. However, this considers only direct subsidies identified by the 713: 684: 347: 282: 251: 2829: 2599: 2378: 3391: 1126:

principle. Lessig's web site convention.idea.informer.com allows anyone to propose and vote on constitutional amendments.

611: 583: 495: 383: 3506: 3476: 3436: 3411: 3386: 3376: 3361: 3341: 3306: 3206: 2940: 2774: 2729: 1838: 1181: 667:(D-WI) sought to eliminate soft money and TV advertising expenditures, but the legislation was defeated by a Republican 3516: 3421: 2148: 3668: 3526: 3501: 3481: 3346: 3321: 3281: 1226: 623: 3396: 3311: 2427: 1595: 671:. Several different proposals were made in 1999 by both parties. The Campaign Integrity Act (H.R. 1867), proposed by 618:, Congress passed amendments to the Act establishing a comprehensive system of regulation and enforcement, including 1085:

introduced the "Outlawing Corporate Cash Undermining the Public Interest in our Elections and Democracy" (OCCUPIED)

643:. Among other changes, this removed limits on candidate expenditures unless the candidate accepts public financing. 3653: 3521: 3486: 3461: 3366: 3331: 3286: 2470: 2122: 1086: 750: 3456: 3401: 3316: 3296: 2428:"Campaign Finance Reform: Early Experiences of Two States That Offer Full Public Funding for Political Candidates" 2303: 1748: 3491: 3406: 3371: 3291: 1662: 1502: 1242: 978: 966: 776:. After moving through lower courts, in September 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case, 83: 3416: 3356: 3451: 3336: 3170: 2915: 1250: 1238: 1230: 1135: 223: 155: 3563: 3496: 3351: 3126: 2206: 2405: 1022: 336: 2228: 614:, known as FECA, requiring broad disclosure of campaign finance. In 1974, fueled by public reaction to the 591: 1823: 1301: 1162: 869: 515: 70: 51: 1950: 1456:

percent) and independents (81 percent). In response to the ruling, a grassroots, bipartisan group called

782:. On Wednesday, December 10, 2003, the Supreme Court issued a 5–4 ruling that upheld its key provisions. 695: 2524: 1411: 1210: 1188:

and an artificial entity, such as a corporation. The resolution was introduced in the Senate by Senator

2550: 1475:

Scalia, Alito and Kennedy; Justice Thomas concurred in the judgment but wrote separately to argue that

595: 2495: 2836: 1618: 1461: 1277:

from construing the spending of money to influence elections as a form of protected speech under the

1139: 1123: 579: 522: 168: 115: 95: 2624: 1925: 1180:

The Democracy For All Amendment was introduced in multiple sessions of Congress beginning with the

1051: 1002: 740:

The BCRA was a mixed bag for those who wanted to remove big money from politics. It eliminated all

700: 567: 543: 427: 150: 90: 534:

and campaign contributions, and greater citizen participation and control, including standardized

467:

pledged $ 10,000 each to pay for the costs of promoting the election. On the Republican side, one

3078: 2702: 2667: 2241: 2105: 1640: 1111: 1078: 829: 810: 550: 539: 440: 108: 43: 3008:

For more discussion, see MCCUTCHEON ET AL. v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION. 572 U. S. ____ (2014)

2812:"House Democrat Introduces OCCUPIED Constitutional Amendment to Ban Corporate Money in Politics" 2458: 1157:) "to expressly exclude for-profit corporations from the rights given to natural persons by the 3073: 2339: 1977:

Soft Money and Hard Choices: Why Political Parties Might Legislate Against Soft Money Donations

3186: 3145: 2973: 2659: 2177: 1984: 1980: 1782: 1727: 1703: 1648: 1554: 1507: 1480: 1325:

which allowed citizens to contribute to an unlimited number of candidates around the country.

1322: 1254: 937: 730: 615: 587: 503: 487:

told supporters that they should send him to Congress to enable them to make even more money.

293:". Key provisions of the law prohibited unregulated contributions (commonly referred to as " 195: 36: 476:

were introduced, these practices continued, applying methods such as requiring voters to use

3673: 3633: 3536: 2694: 2651: 2600:"Appendix 5: Conclusions & Recommendations on New Jersey's "Clean Elections" Experiment" 2091: 1772: 1317: 1270: 1234: 1218: 1115: 1099: 1018: 804: 778: 635: 619: 499: 468: 218: 135: 130: 63: 3678: 3594: 3059: 2758: 2630: 2087:

Text of San Juan County v. No New Gas Tax (Supreme Court of Washington) is available from:

1693: 1527: 1486: 1373: 1297:

limited contributions can be supplemented or displaced by Congress or State Legislatures.

1246: 1214: 1103: 1074: 991: 818: 773: 765: 241: 140: 125: 3100: 3052: 3028: 2751: 3236: 2364: 2278: 1017:

since 2000. Connecticut passed a Clean Elections law in 2005, along with the cities of

2574:"Issue Analysis 2: Legislator Occupations: Change or Status Quo After Clean Elections?" 2256: 2031:"Critics say Wellstone's finance reform amendment may violate freedom of speech rights" 1891: 1697: 1624: 1540: 1185: 1150: 1009:

This procedure has been in place in races for all statewide and legislative offices in

961: 941: 936:

Lessig (2011, p. 269) notes that the cost of this is tiny relative to the cost of

918: 758: 725: 672: 423: 190: 17: 2058: 960:

Another method allows the candidates to raise funds from private donors, but provides

793:

In 2006, the United States Supreme Court issued two decisions on campaign finance. In

582:

candidates followed in 1910 and 1911. General contribution limits were enacted in the

236: 3695: 3638: 2883: 2706: 2171: 1717: 1636: 1548: 1457: 746: 721: 664: 554: 535: 483: 290: 180: 1903: 1434: 498:. Hanna directly contributed $ 100,000 to the nomination campaign of fellow Ohioan 1842: 1756: 1222: 880: 680: 477: 452: 1723:

The Last Hurrah? Soft Money and Issue Advocacy in the 2002 Congressional Elections

2698: 1776: 1721: 490:

In 1896, a wealthy Ohio industrialist, shipping magnate and political operative,

2966:"Proposed constitutional amendment to rein in campaign spending fails in Senate" 2603: 2382: 1517: 1142: 734: 717: 676: 660: 599: 448: 325: 286: 2149:"DownWithTyranny!: GOP Filibuster Succeeds In Blocking Campaign Finance Reform" 514:, and so on. Business supporters, determined to defeat the Democratic-populist 27:

United States efforts to regulate fundraising for democratic election campaigns

1522: 1193: 1082: 1031: 741: 668: 491: 294: 120: 2977: 2782: 2663: 1426:

is important to explain why the Court should not be deciding that question."

2825: 1544: 1274: 1189: 1161:, prohibit corporate spending in all elections, and affirm the authority of 1091: 922: 622:

of presidential campaigns and creation of a central enforcement agency, the

527: 507: 444: 443:, parties increasingly relied on wealthy individuals for support, including 213: 185: 175: 145: 3207:

Poll: Large majority opposes Supreme Court's decision on campaign financing

2685:

Erde, John (August 2014). "Constructing archives of the Occupy movement".

2434: 1603: 1811: 1460:

was created to garner support for a constitutional amendment overturning

769: 531: 2671: 2474: 2279:"Text of H.R. 270 (113th): Empowering Citizens Act (Introduced version)" 2899: 1824:

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/teachers/lesson_plans/pdfs/unit5_6.pdf

1154: 1010: 716:(BCRA), also called the McCain–Feingold bill after its chief sponsors, 2433:. U.S. General Accounting Office. May 2003. GAO-03-453. Archived from 1670: 2877:"Campaign finance, lobbying major roadblocks to effective government" 2655: 2642:

Ikenberry, G. John; Hardt, Michael; Negri, Antonio (2000). "Empire".

1146: 511: 473: 2997: 2329:"The Road to Victory. Clean Elections Shapes 2002 Arizona Elections" 1331:

to ensure manifold commitment to the integrity of American democracy

1699:

Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress – and a Plan to Stop It

1833: 1831: 1433: 1014: 757:(NRA), as part of the "Wellstone Amendment", sponsored by Senator 2199:"How to fix campaign financing forever for $ 50 – 2008 Elections" 431:

politicians. Jackson claimed that his charter battle against the

2489:"Do "Clean Election" Laws Increase Women in State Legislatures?" 683:

Campaign Reform Act (H.R. 417) evolved into the McCain–Feingold

639:

struck down various FECA limits on spending as unconstitutional

3240: 422:

To gain votes from recently enfranchised, unpropertied voters,

3053:

Syllabus : Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

849: 319: 2473:. Institute for Free Speech. November 6, 2011. Archived from 2459:

http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/bitstreams/4523.pdf

1333:" in order to compel networks and social media to cooperate. 1569:"Uncompetitive Elections and the American Political System." 796:

Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc.

50: 1134:

The Saving American Democracy Amendment is a United States

606:

Federal Elections Campaign Act and the Watergate Amendments

3219: 1003:

Arizona Free Enterprise Club's Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett

2602:. Institute for Free Speech. May 27, 2008. Archived from 729:

overhaul of federal campaign finance laws since the post-

2173:

Voting with Dollars: A New Paradigm for Campaign Finance

1199:

House Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice

1110:

in a September 24–25, 2011 conference co-chaired by the

927:

Voting with Dollars: A New Paradigm for Campaign Finance

2863: 2830:"A Constitutional Amendment to Reform Campaign Finance" 1377:

of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech."

2304:"Empowering Citizens Act | Brennan Center for Justice" 300:

Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life

3094:"Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm'n, page 88" 2722:"A constitutional agenda for the "Occupy" protesters" 1839:"americandaughter.info - Registered at Namecheap.com" 1663:"The Federal Election Campaign Laws: A Short History" 1281:

or from holding that the amendment would abridge the

463:

In the campaign of 1872, a group of wealthy New York

3209:

Associated Press via Yahoo News. February 17, 2010

1567:

Basham, Patrick and Dennis Polhill (June 30, 2005).

3623: 3587: 3549: 3535: 3274: 3016: 3014: 2781:. Ted Deutch for Congress Committee. Archived from 2687:

The Journal of the Archives and Records Association

2365:"November 2010 General Election - Official Results" 1778:

Unfree Speech: The Folly of Campaign Finance Reform

480:to record their vote publicly in order to be paid. 350:. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. 737:to explain Congress's incentives to pass the Act. 2404:Star-Ledger Editorial Board (September 6, 2008). 1854: 1852: 1209:The We the People Amendment would establish that 566:This first effort at wide-ranging reform was the 3191:: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown ( 3174:. Archived from the original on January 27, 2010 3074:"Justices, 5–4, Reject Corporate Spending Limit" 2106:Justices Seem Skeptical of Scope of Campaign Law 1469:McCutcheon et al. v. Federal Election Commission 574:Disclosure requirements and spending limits for 3197:Associated Press via ABC News. January 24, 2010 1896:"Citizen Legislature and Political Freedom Act" 1405:Justice Stevens, J. wrote, in partial dissent: 2728:. National Constitution Center. Archived from 1362:Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission 1354:Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission 1170:Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission 824:Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission 359:"Campaign finance reform in the United States" 3252: 3166:"McCain says campaign finance reform is dead" 2151:. Downwithtyranny.blogspot.com. July 28, 2010 2123:"DISCLOSE Act Faces GOP Filibuster In Senate" 1809:"Are Political Contributions Tax Deductible?" 259: 8: 3702:Campaign finance reform in the United States 3022:"Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm'n" 2255:. Fec.gov. February 27, 2009. Archived from 3150:: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list ( 2866:, Harvard University, September 24–25, 2011 2864:Conference on the Constitutional Convention 2850:"Advocacy Groups Seek to Curb Corporations" 2576:. Institute for Free Speech. Archived from 2471:"About the Center for Competitive Politics" 3259: 3245: 3237: 3127:"Who are the Biggest Organization Donors?" 2797:"House Democrat: Occupy the Constitution!" 1975:Gill, David; Lipsmeyer, Christine (2005). 1749:"Public Funding of Presidential Elections" 879:. Please do not remove this message until 279:Campaign finance laws in the United States 266: 252: 31: 1629:Chapter 9, Cato Handbook for Policymakers 899:Learn how and when to remove this message 410:Learn how and when to remove this message 2900:"Propose Amendments to the Constitution" 2406:"End clean-elections flop | NJ.com" 1464:and declaring that money is not speech. 1390:McConnell v. Federal Election Commission 1253:of such entities cannot be construed as 875:Relevant discussion may be found on the 2065:. US Supreme Court. December 10, 2003. 1801: 1685:Hoersting, Stephen M. (April 3, 2006). 1271:political contributions or expenditures 42: 3184: 3143: 2941:"Congressional Record Senate Articles" 2059:"McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93 (2003)" 1860:"CAMPAIGN FINANCE Historical Timeline" 1687:"Free Speech and the 527 Prohibition." 1384:Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce 990:Another method, which supporters call 708:Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 3268:Electoral reform in the United States 3062:, Supreme Court of the United States. 2914:Sanders, Bernard (December 8, 2011). 2010:from the original on November 7, 2018 1513:Electoral reform in the United States 1498:Campaign finance in the United States 755:National Rifle Association of America 598:(1947) extended the corporate ban to 7: 2720:Denniston, Lyle (October 27, 2011). 2170:Ackerman, Bruce; Ayres, Ian (2002). 1167:United States Supreme Court decision 997:Davis v. Federal Election Commission 691:Political Reform Act (Proposition 9) 348:adding citations to reliable sources 1619:"BP stops paying political parties" 1192:and in the House by Representative 1130:Saving American Democracy Amendment 2069:from the original on March 3, 2016 1397:rights under the First Amendment. 457:Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act 307:tax-deductible from income taxes. 25: 3072:Liptak, Adam (January 21, 2010). 2848:Carney, E.N. (November 29, 2011) 2547:"Center for Competitive Politics" 2521:"Center for Competitive Politics" 1159:Constitution of the United States 1064:Campaign finance reform amendment 788:No New Gas Tax v. San Juan County 3649:Rotating Regional Primary System 2810:Portero, A. (November 22, 2011) 1951:"About the Political Reform Act" 1596:"Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act" 1269:to regulate, limit, or prohibit 854: 733:era. Academic research has used 433:Second Bank of the United States 324: 235: 2750:Deutch, T. (November 18, 2011) 2367:. The City of Portland, Oregon. 1249:, and further establishes that 1048:Center for Competitive Politics 1044:Center for Governmental Studies 696:The Political Reform Act (1974) 335:needs additional citations for 285:(BCRA) of 2002, also known as " 2795:Khimm, S. (November 18, 2011) 2775:"About the OCCUPIED Amendment" 2029:Annie Feidt (March 27, 2001). 1781:. Princeton University Press. 1600:The Campaign Finance Institute 1039:Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act 979:Empowering Citizens Act (2013) 973:Empowering Citizens Act (2013) 714:Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act 685:Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act 647:Reforms of the 1980s and 1990s 283:Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act 1: 2761:, 112th Congress (2011–2012) 1998:Mickey Kaus (April 4, 2002). 1720:; Monson, Quin, eds. (2002). 1647:. The Brookings Institution. 1580:The Christian Science Monitor 1138:proposed in December 2011 by 612:Federal Election Campaign Act 584:Federal Corrupt Practices Act 549:In his first term, President 496:Republican National Committee 2903:convention.idea.informer.com 2815:International Business Times 2699:10.1080/23257962.2014.943168 992:clean money, clean elections 846:Current proposals for reform 586:(1925). An amendment to the 530:laws, restricting corporate 3669:Nonpartisan blanket primary 2875:Hill, A. (October 4, 2011) 2833:112th Congress, 1st Session 2629:September 27, 2011, at the 2572:Renz, Laura (May 1, 2008). 1753:Federal Election Commission 1667:Federal Election Commission 1645:Financing the 2004 Election 1227:limited liability companies 1176:Democracy For All Amendment 967:U.S. presidential primaries 881:conditions to do so are met 624:Federal Election Commission 3718: 3654:Interregional Primary Plan 2887:Marketplace Morning Report 2757:December 16, 2012, at the 2229:"Democracy Policy Network" 1902:. GOVTRACK. Archived from 1098:Harvard law professor and 1090:November 1, 2011, Senator 1061: 1027:clean elections initiative 751:Environmental Defense Fund 3588:Commonly proposed reforms 2381:. Adn.com. Archived from 2176:. Yale University Press. 1726:. Brookings Institution. 1576:"A Bad Day for Democracy" 1503:Publicly funded elections 1116:public campaign financing 1108:constitutional convention 1081:protests, Representative 1058:Constitutional amendments 641:violations of free speech 629:The 1976 decision of the 3660:Primary process reforms 3605:Electoral College reform 3569:Northern Mariana Islands 2779:theoccupiedamendment.org 2752:"H.J. Res. 90" bill text 1300:Second, to overcome the 1136:constitutional amendment 1122:reform to establish the 1087:constitutional amendment 712:The Congress passed the 3600:Campaign Finance Reform 2889:(American Public Media) 1255:inherent or inalienable 1205:We The People Amendment 1023:Albuquerque, New Mexico 772:), the Senate Majority 701:Buckley v. Valeo (1976) 656:Republican filibuster. 494:became Chairman of the 18:Campaign Finance Reform 3058:June 22, 2017, at the 2038:Minnesota Public Radio 1439: 1302:Citizens United v. FEC 1054:on Arizona's program. 516:William Jennings Bryan 71:Grassroots fundraising 55: 3630:Primary date reforms 2785:on November 27, 2011. 2606:on September 14, 2018 2580:on September 29, 2011 2308:www.brennancenter.org 1485:July 2, 2017, at the 1437: 1412:glittering generality 1231:incorporated entities 1211:constitutional rights 54: 44:Political campaigning 3610:Ranked-Choice voting 2837:United States Senate 2477:on February 5, 2012. 2440:on December 28, 2006 1759:on February 22, 2006 1462:corporate personhood 1283:freedom of the press 1124:one person, one vote 837:DISCLOSE Act of 2010 344:improve this article 169:Negative campaigning 3579:U.S. Virgin Islands 2835:(Washington, D.C.: 2828:(November 1, 2011) 2800:The Washington Post 2259:on October 19, 2011 2006:. The Slate Group. 2000:"Wellstone's Folly" 1641:Patterson, Kelly D. 1550:Voting with Dollars 1438:Political donations 1257:. It would require 1219:artificial entities 1052:Goldwater Institute 925:in their 2002 book 912:Voting with dollars 868:of this section is 568:Tillman Act of 1907 562:Tillman Act of 1907 428:political patronage 242:Politics portal 151:Post-truth politics 91:Opposition research 3079:The New York Times 2898:Lessig, L. (2011) 2882:July 13, 2012, at 2726:Constitution Daily 2553:on January 6, 2009 2527:on January 6, 2009 2385:on January 2, 2009 2110:The New York Times 1926:"Buckley v. Valeo" 1635:Corrado, Anthony; 1582:. January 22, 2010 1440: 1430:Impact on spending 1112:Tea Party Patriots 1079:Occupy Wall Street 1069:OCCUPIED Amendment 830:Hillary: The Movie 811:Randall v. Sorrell 659:In 1997, Senators 592:Smith–Connally Act 551:Theodore Roosevelt 540:voter registration 521:Twentieth-century 56: 3689: 3688: 2501:on March 25, 2009 2209:on April 26, 2009 1979:. Public Choice. 1788:978-0-691-11369-2 1733:978-0-8157-5436-7 1709:978-0-446-57643-7 1654:978-0-8157-5439-8 1637:Magleby, David B. 1606:on March 17, 2005 1508:Democracy Matters 1374:Justice Kennedy's 1323:McCutcheon v. FEC 1267:local governments 1213:are reserved for 1120:electoral college 938:corporate welfare 909: 908: 901: 731:Watergate scandal 616:Watergate Scandal 588:Hatch Act of 1939 420: 419: 412: 394: 276: 275: 196:Voter suppression 16:(Redirected from 3709: 3674:Top-four primary 3634:National Primary 3543:Washington, D.C. 3537:Federal district 3261: 3254: 3247: 3238: 3232: 3231: 3229: 3227: 3216: 3210: 3204: 3198: 3196: 3190: 3182: 3180: 3179: 3162: 3156: 3155: 3149: 3141: 3139: 3137: 3122: 3116: 3115: 3113: 3111: 3106:on June 22, 2017 3105: 3099:. Archived from 3098: 3090: 3084: 3083: 3069: 3063: 3050: 3044: 3043: 3041: 3039: 3034:on June 22, 2017 3033: 3027:. Archived from 3026: 3018: 3009: 3006: 3000: 2995: 2989: 2988: 2986: 2984: 2962: 2956: 2955: 2953: 2951: 2945:www.congress.gov 2937: 2931: 2930: 2928: 2926: 2920:www.congress.gov 2911: 2905: 2896: 2890: 2873: 2867: 2861: 2855: 2846: 2840: 2823: 2817: 2808: 2802: 2793: 2787: 2786: 2771: 2765: 2748: 2742: 2741: 2739: 2737: 2717: 2711: 2710: 2682: 2676: 2675: 2656:10.2307/20049831 2639: 2633: 2622: 2616: 2615: 2613: 2611: 2596: 2590: 2589: 2587: 2585: 2569: 2563: 2562: 2560: 2558: 2549:. Archived from 2543: 2537: 2536: 2534: 2532: 2523:. Archived from 2517: 2511: 2510: 2508: 2506: 2500: 2494:. Archived from 2493: 2485: 2479: 2478: 2467: 2461: 2456: 2450: 2449: 2447: 2445: 2439: 2432: 2424: 2418: 2417: 2415: 2413: 2401: 2395: 2394: 2392: 2390: 2375: 2369: 2368: 2361: 2355: 2354: 2352: 2350: 2345:on June 25, 2008 2344: 2338:. Archived from 2333: 2325: 2319: 2318: 2316: 2314: 2300: 2294: 2293: 2291: 2289: 2275: 2269: 2268: 2266: 2264: 2249: 2243: 2239: 2233: 2232: 2225: 2219: 2218: 2216: 2214: 2205:. Archived from 2194: 2188: 2187: 2167: 2161: 2160: 2158: 2156: 2145: 2139: 2138: 2136: 2134: 2119: 2113: 2112:, March 24, 2009 2103: 2097: 2096: 2090: 2085: 2079: 2078: 2076: 2074: 2055: 2049: 2048: 2046: 2044: 2035: 2026: 2020: 2019: 2017: 2015: 1995: 1989: 1988: 1972: 1966: 1965: 1963: 1961: 1947: 1941: 1940: 1938: 1936: 1922: 1916: 1915: 1913: 1911: 1906:on April 7, 2015 1888: 1882: 1881: 1879: 1877: 1872:on July 24, 2011 1871: 1865:. Archived from 1864: 1856: 1847: 1846: 1841:. Archived from 1835: 1826: 1821: 1815: 1806: 1792: 1768: 1766: 1764: 1755:. Archived from 1744: 1742: 1740: 1713: 1694:Lessig, Lawrence 1682: 1680: 1678: 1673:on July 30, 2005 1669:. Archived from 1658: 1615: 1613: 1611: 1602:. Archived from 1591: 1589: 1587: 1564: 1318:Buckley v. Valeo 1100:Creative Commons 1037:A clause in the 1019:Portland, Oregon 904: 897: 893: 890: 884: 858: 857: 850: 808:. In that case, 805:Buckley v. Valeo 779:McConnell v. FEC 636:Buckley v. Valeo 631:US Supreme Court 620:public financing 596:Taft–Hartley Act 544:women's suffrage 500:William McKinley 469:Ulysses S. Grant 415: 408: 404: 401: 395: 393: 352: 328: 320: 268: 261: 254: 240: 239: 219:Campaign manager 136:Get out the vote 131:Election promise 32: 21: 3717: 3716: 3712: 3711: 3710: 3708: 3707: 3706: 3692: 3691: 3690: 3685: 3679:Unified primary 3644:California Plan 3624:Primary reforms 3619: 3595:Approval voting 3583: 3545: 3531: 3270: 3265: 3235: 3225: 3223: 3222:. Move to Amend 3220:"Move to Amend" 3218: 3217: 3213: 3205: 3201: 3183: 3177: 3175: 3164: 3163: 3159: 3142: 3135: 3133: 3124: 3123: 3119: 3109: 3107: 3103: 3096: 3092: 3091: 3087: 3071: 3070: 3066: 3060:Wayback Machine 3051: 3047: 3037: 3035: 3031: 3024: 3020: 3019: 3012: 3007: 3003: 2996: 2992: 2982: 2980: 2970:Washington Post 2964: 2963: 2959: 2949: 2947: 2939: 2938: 2934: 2924: 2922: 2913: 2912: 2908: 2897: 2893: 2874: 2870: 2862: 2858: 2847: 2843: 2824: 2820: 2809: 2805: 2794: 2790: 2773: 2772: 2768: 2759:Wayback Machine 2749: 2745: 2735: 2733: 2732:on May 28, 2018 2719: 2718: 2714: 2684: 2683: 2679: 2644:Foreign Affairs 2641: 2640: 2636: 2631:Wayback Machine 2623: 2619: 2609: 2607: 2598: 2597: 2593: 2583: 2581: 2571: 2570: 2566: 2556: 2554: 2545: 2544: 2540: 2530: 2528: 2519: 2518: 2514: 2504: 2502: 2498: 2491: 2487: 2486: 2482: 2469: 2468: 2464: 2457: 2453: 2443: 2441: 2437: 2430: 2426: 2425: 2421: 2411: 2409: 2403: 2402: 2398: 2388: 2386: 2377: 2376: 2372: 2363: 2362: 2358: 2348: 2346: 2342: 2336:www.azclean.org 2331: 2327: 2326: 2322: 2312: 2310: 2302: 2301: 2297: 2287: 2285: 2277: 2276: 2272: 2262: 2260: 2251: 2250: 2246: 2240: 2236: 2227: 2226: 2222: 2212: 2210: 2196: 2195: 2191: 2184: 2169: 2168: 2164: 2154: 2152: 2147: 2146: 2142: 2132: 2130: 2129:. July 27, 2010 2127:Huffington Post 2121: 2120: 2116: 2104: 2100: 2094: 2088: 2086: 2082: 2072: 2070: 2057: 2056: 2052: 2042: 2040: 2033: 2028: 2027: 2023: 2013: 2011: 1997: 1996: 1992: 1974: 1973: 1969: 1959: 1957: 1955:www.fppc.ca.gov 1949: 1948: 1944: 1934: 1932: 1924: 1923: 1919: 1909: 1907: 1892:Doolittle, John 1890: 1889: 1885: 1875: 1873: 1869: 1862: 1858: 1857: 1850: 1845:on May 4, 2007. 1837: 1836: 1829: 1822: 1818: 1807: 1803: 1799: 1789: 1771: 1762: 1760: 1747: 1738: 1736: 1734: 1716: 1710: 1692: 1676: 1674: 1661: 1655: 1643:, eds. (2006). 1634: 1609: 1607: 1594: 1585: 1583: 1574: 1561: 1541:Ackerman, Bruce 1539: 1536: 1528:Pacific scandal 1494: 1487:Wayback Machine 1472: 1449: 1447:Public response 1432: 1403: 1371: 1357: 1346: 1291: 1279:First Amendment 1215:natural persons 1104:Lawrence Lessig 1075:Occupy Movement 1066: 1060: 988: 986:Clean elections 958: 914: 905: 894: 888: 885: 874: 859: 855: 848: 839: 819:Hillary Clinton 766:Mitch McConnell 710: 649: 608: 564: 416: 405: 399: 396: 353: 351: 341: 329: 318: 313: 272: 234: 229: 228: 209: 201: 200: 171: 161: 160: 141:Gevald campaign 126:Retail politics 111: 101: 100: 86: 76: 75: 66: 37:Politics series 28: 23: 22: 15: 12: 11: 5: 3715: 3713: 3705: 3704: 3694: 3693: 3687: 3686: 3684: 3683: 3682: 3681: 3676: 3671: 3666: 3664:Open primaries 3658: 3657: 3656: 3651: 3646: 3641: 3636: 3627: 3625: 3621: 3620: 3618: 3617: 3612: 3607: 3602: 3597: 3591: 3589: 3585: 3584: 3582: 3581: 3576: 3571: 3566: 3561: 3559:American Samoa 3555: 3553: 3547: 3546: 3541: 3539: 3533: 3532: 3530: 3529: 3524: 3519: 3514: 3509: 3504: 3499: 3494: 3489: 3484: 3479: 3477:South Carolina 3474: 3469: 3464: 3459: 3454: 3449: 3444: 3442:North Carolina 3439: 3434: 3429: 3424: 3419: 3414: 3409: 3404: 3399: 3394: 3389: 3384: 3379: 3374: 3369: 3364: 3359: 3354: 3349: 3344: 3339: 3334: 3329: 3324: 3319: 3314: 3309: 3304: 3299: 3294: 3289: 3284: 3278: 3276: 3272: 3271: 3266: 3264: 3263: 3256: 3249: 3241: 3234: 3233: 3211: 3199: 3157: 3117: 3085: 3064: 3045: 3010: 3001: 2998:CFR28 Web Site 2990: 2957: 2932: 2906: 2891: 2868: 2856: 2841: 2818: 2803: 2788: 2766: 2763:THOMAS.loc.gov 2743: 2712: 2677: 2634: 2617: 2591: 2564: 2538: 2512: 2480: 2462: 2451: 2419: 2396: 2370: 2356: 2320: 2295: 2270: 2244: 2234: 2220: 2189: 2183:978-0300092622 2182: 2162: 2140: 2114: 2098: 2080: 2050: 2021: 1990: 1967: 1942: 1917: 1883: 1848: 1827: 1816: 1800: 1798: 1795: 1794: 1793: 1787: 1773:Smith, Bradley 1769: 1745: 1732: 1718:Magleby, David 1714: 1708: 1690: 1689:Cato Institute 1683: 1659: 1653: 1632: 1631:, 7th Edition. 1625:Cato Institute 1622: 1616: 1592: 1572: 1571:Cato Institute 1565: 1560:978-0300092622 1559: 1553:. Yale U. Pr. 1535: 1532: 1531: 1530: 1525: 1520: 1515: 1510: 1505: 1500: 1493: 1490: 1471: 1466: 1448: 1445: 1431: 1428: 1423: 1422: 1417: 1416: 1402: 1399: 1370: 1367: 1356: 1351: 1345: 1339: 1290: 1287: 1186:natural person 1151:Bernie Sanders 1062:Main article: 1059: 1056: 987: 984: 962:matching funds 957: 956:Matching funds 954: 942:Cato Institute 919:Bruce Ackerman 913: 910: 907: 906: 862: 860: 853: 847: 844: 838: 835: 759:Paul Wellstone 726:President Bush 709: 706: 673:Asa Hutchinson 648: 645: 607: 604: 563: 560: 536:secret ballots 424:Andrew Jackson 418: 417: 332: 330: 323: 317: 316:First attempts 314: 312: 309: 274: 273: 271: 270: 263: 256: 248: 245: 244: 231: 230: 227: 226: 224:Campaign staff 221: 216: 210: 207: 206: 203: 202: 199: 198: 193: 191:Smear campaign 188: 183: 178: 172: 167: 166: 163: 162: 159: 158: 156:Text messaging 153: 148: 143: 138: 133: 128: 123: 118: 112: 107: 106: 103: 102: 99: 98: 93: 87: 82: 81: 78: 77: 74: 73: 67: 62: 61: 58: 57: 47: 46: 40: 39: 26: 24: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3714: 3703: 3700: 3699: 3697: 3680: 3677: 3675: 3672: 3670: 3667: 3665: 3662: 3661: 3659: 3655: 3652: 3650: 3647: 3645: 3642: 3640: 3639:Delaware Plan 3637: 3635: 3632: 3631: 3629: 3628: 3626: 3622: 3616: 3613: 3611: 3608: 3606: 3603: 3601: 3598: 3596: 3593: 3592: 3590: 3586: 3580: 3577: 3575: 3572: 3570: 3567: 3565: 3562: 3560: 3557: 3556: 3554: 3552: 3548: 3544: 3540: 3538: 3534: 3528: 3525: 3523: 3520: 3518: 3517:West Virginia 3515: 3513: 3510: 3508: 3505: 3503: 3500: 3498: 3495: 3493: 3490: 3488: 3485: 3483: 3480: 3478: 3475: 3473: 3470: 3468: 3465: 3463: 3460: 3458: 3455: 3453: 3450: 3448: 3445: 3443: 3440: 3438: 3435: 3433: 3430: 3428: 3425: 3423: 3422:New Hampshire 3420: 3418: 3415: 3413: 3410: 3408: 3405: 3403: 3400: 3398: 3395: 3393: 3390: 3388: 3385: 3383: 3382:Massachusetts 3380: 3378: 3375: 3373: 3370: 3368: 3365: 3363: 3360: 3358: 3355: 3353: 3350: 3348: 3345: 3343: 3340: 3338: 3335: 3333: 3330: 3328: 3325: 3323: 3320: 3318: 3315: 3313: 3310: 3308: 3305: 3303: 3300: 3298: 3295: 3293: 3290: 3288: 3285: 3283: 3280: 3279: 3277: 3273: 3269: 3262: 3257: 3255: 3250: 3248: 3243: 3242: 3239: 3221: 3215: 3212: 3208: 3203: 3200: 3194: 3188: 3173: 3172: 3167: 3161: 3158: 3153: 3147: 3132: 3128: 3121: 3118: 3102: 3095: 3089: 3086: 3081: 3080: 3075: 3068: 3065: 3061: 3057: 3054: 3049: 3046: 3030: 3023: 3017: 3015: 3011: 3005: 3002: 2999: 2994: 2991: 2979: 2975: 2971: 2967: 2961: 2958: 2946: 2942: 2936: 2933: 2921: 2917: 2910: 2907: 2904: 2901: 2895: 2892: 2888: 2885: 2884:archive.today 2881: 2878: 2872: 2869: 2865: 2860: 2857: 2854: 2851: 2845: 2842: 2838: 2834: 2831: 2827: 2822: 2819: 2816: 2813: 2807: 2804: 2801: 2798: 2792: 2789: 2784: 2780: 2776: 2770: 2767: 2764: 2760: 2756: 2753: 2747: 2744: 2731: 2727: 2723: 2716: 2713: 2708: 2704: 2700: 2696: 2692: 2688: 2681: 2678: 2673: 2669: 2665: 2661: 2657: 2653: 2649: 2645: 2638: 2635: 2632: 2628: 2625: 2621: 2618: 2610:September 14, 2605: 2601: 2595: 2592: 2584:September 14, 2579: 2575: 2568: 2565: 2552: 2548: 2542: 2539: 2531:September 18, 2526: 2522: 2516: 2513: 2505:September 18, 2497: 2490: 2484: 2481: 2476: 2472: 2466: 2463: 2460: 2455: 2452: 2436: 2429: 2423: 2420: 2408:. Blog.nj.com 2407: 2400: 2397: 2384: 2380: 2374: 2371: 2366: 2360: 2357: 2341: 2337: 2330: 2324: 2321: 2309: 2305: 2299: 2296: 2284: 2280: 2274: 2271: 2258: 2254: 2253:"20090227MUR" 2248: 2245: 2242: 2238: 2235: 2230: 2224: 2221: 2208: 2204: 2200: 2197:Walsh, Joan. 2193: 2190: 2185: 2179: 2175: 2174: 2166: 2163: 2150: 2144: 2141: 2128: 2124: 2118: 2115: 2111: 2107: 2102: 2099: 2093: 2084: 2081: 2068: 2064: 2060: 2054: 2051: 2039: 2032: 2025: 2022: 2009: 2005: 2001: 1994: 1991: 1986: 1982: 1978: 1971: 1968: 1956: 1952: 1946: 1943: 1931: 1927: 1921: 1918: 1905: 1901: 1897: 1893: 1887: 1884: 1868: 1861: 1855: 1853: 1849: 1844: 1840: 1834: 1832: 1828: 1825: 1820: 1817: 1813: 1810: 1805: 1802: 1796: 1790: 1784: 1780: 1779: 1774: 1770: 1758: 1754: 1750: 1746: 1735: 1729: 1725: 1724: 1719: 1715: 1711: 1705: 1701: 1700: 1695: 1691: 1688: 1684: 1672: 1668: 1664: 1660: 1656: 1650: 1646: 1642: 1638: 1633: 1630: 1626: 1623: 1620: 1617: 1605: 1601: 1597: 1593: 1581: 1577: 1573: 1570: 1566: 1562: 1556: 1552: 1551: 1546: 1542: 1538: 1537: 1533: 1529: 1526: 1524: 1521: 1519: 1516: 1514: 1511: 1509: 1506: 1504: 1501: 1499: 1496: 1495: 1491: 1489: 1488: 1484: 1481: 1478: 1470: 1467: 1465: 1463: 1459: 1458:Move to Amend 1453: 1446: 1444: 1436: 1429: 1427: 1419: 1418: 1413: 1408: 1407: 1406: 1400: 1398: 1394: 1392: 1391: 1386: 1385: 1378: 1375: 1368: 1366: 1364: 1363: 1355: 1352: 1350: 1344: 1340: 1338: 1334: 1332: 1326: 1324: 1319: 1314: 1310: 1306: 1303: 1298: 1294: 1288: 1286: 1284: 1280: 1276: 1272: 1268: 1264: 1260: 1256: 1252: 1248: 1244: 1240: 1236: 1232: 1228: 1224: 1220: 1216: 1212: 1207: 1206: 1202: 1200: 1195: 1191: 1187: 1183: 1178: 1177: 1173: 1171: 1168: 1164: 1160: 1156: 1152: 1148: 1144: 1141: 1137: 1132: 1131: 1127: 1125: 1121: 1117: 1113: 1109: 1106:called for a 1105: 1102:board member 1101: 1096: 1093: 1088: 1084: 1080: 1076: 1071: 1070: 1065: 1057: 1055: 1053: 1049: 1045: 1040: 1035: 1033: 1028: 1024: 1020: 1016: 1012: 1007: 1005: 1004: 999: 998: 993: 985: 983: 980: 975: 974: 970: 968: 963: 955: 953: 949: 945: 943: 939: 934: 930: 928: 924: 920: 911: 903: 900: 892: 889:November 2014 882: 878: 872: 871: 867: 861: 852: 851: 845: 843: 836: 834: 832: 831: 826: 825: 820: 815: 813: 812: 807: 806: 800: 798: 797: 791: 789: 783: 781: 780: 775: 771: 767: 762: 760: 756: 752: 748: 747:Olympia Snowe 743: 738: 736: 732: 727: 723: 722:Russ Feingold 719: 715: 707: 705: 702: 697: 693: 692: 688: 686: 682: 678: 674: 670: 666: 662: 657: 653: 646: 644: 642: 638: 637: 632: 627: 625: 621: 617: 613: 605: 603: 601: 597: 593: 589: 585: 581: 577: 572: 569: 561: 559: 556: 555:E.H. Harriman 552: 547: 545: 541: 537: 533: 529: 524: 519: 517: 513: 509: 505: 501: 497: 493: 488: 485: 484:Boies Penrose 481: 479: 475: 470: 466: 461: 458: 454: 450: 446: 442: 437: 434: 429: 425: 414: 411: 403: 392: 389: 385: 382: 378: 375: 371: 368: 364: 361: – 360: 356: 355:Find sources: 349: 345: 339: 338: 333:This article 331: 327: 322: 321: 315: 310: 308: 304: 302: 301: 296: 292: 288: 284: 280: 269: 264: 262: 257: 255: 250: 249: 247: 246: 243: 238: 233: 232: 225: 222: 220: 217: 215: 212: 211: 205: 204: 197: 194: 192: 189: 187: 184: 182: 181:Fearmongering 179: 177: 174: 173: 170: 165: 164: 157: 154: 152: 149: 147: 144: 142: 139: 137: 134: 132: 129: 127: 124: 122: 119: 117: 114: 113: 110: 105: 104: 97: 94: 92: 89: 88: 85: 80: 79: 72: 69: 68: 65: 60: 59: 53: 49: 48: 45: 41: 38: 34: 33: 30: 19: 3599: 3574:Puerto Rico 3482:South Dakota 3472:Rhode Island 3467:Pennsylvania 3447:North Dakota 3226:December 26, 3224:. Retrieved 3214: 3202: 3176:. Retrieved 3169: 3160: 3136:November 23, 3134:. Retrieved 3130: 3120: 3110:November 13, 3108:. Retrieved 3101:the original 3088: 3077: 3067: 3048: 3038:November 13, 3036:. Retrieved 3029:the original 3004: 2993: 2983:November 23, 2981:. Retrieved 2969: 2960: 2950:November 23, 2948:. Retrieved 2944: 2935: 2925:November 23, 2923:. Retrieved 2919: 2909: 2902: 2894: 2886: 2871: 2859: 2852: 2844: 2832: 2821: 2814: 2806: 2799: 2791: 2783:the original 2778: 2769: 2762: 2746: 2734:. Retrieved 2730:the original 2725: 2715: 2693:(2): 77–92. 2690: 2686: 2680: 2647: 2643: 2637: 2620: 2608:. Retrieved 2604:the original 2594: 2582:. Retrieved 2578:the original 2567: 2557:December 24, 2555:. Retrieved 2551:the original 2541: 2529:. Retrieved 2525:the original 2515: 2503:. Retrieved 2496:the original 2483: 2475:the original 2465: 2454: 2444:December 29, 2442:. Retrieved 2435:the original 2422: 2412:November 13, 2410:. Retrieved 2399: 2389:November 13, 2387:. Retrieved 2383:the original 2373: 2359: 2347:. Retrieved 2340:the original 2335: 2323: 2311:. Retrieved 2307: 2298: 2286:. Retrieved 2282: 2273: 2263:November 13, 2261:. Retrieved 2257:the original 2247: 2237: 2223: 2213:November 13, 2211:. Retrieved 2207:the original 2202: 2192: 2172: 2165: 2155:November 13, 2153:. Retrieved 2143: 2133:November 13, 2131:. Retrieved 2126: 2117: 2109: 2101: 2083: 2071:. Retrieved 2062: 2053: 2041:. Retrieved 2037: 2024: 2012:. Retrieved 2003: 1993: 1976: 1970: 1958:. Retrieved 1954: 1945: 1933:. Retrieved 1929: 1920: 1908:. Retrieved 1904:the original 1899: 1886: 1874:. Retrieved 1867:the original 1843:the original 1819: 1804: 1777: 1761:. Retrieved 1757:the original 1752: 1737:. Retrieved 1722: 1698: 1675:. Retrieved 1671:the original 1666: 1644: 1621:, March 2002 1608:. Retrieved 1604:the original 1599: 1584:. Retrieved 1579: 1549: 1476: 1473: 1468: 1454: 1450: 1441: 1424: 1404: 1395: 1388: 1382: 1379: 1372: 1360: 1358: 1353: 1347: 1343:Quid Pro Quo 1342: 1335: 1330: 1327: 1315: 1311: 1307: 1299: 1295: 1292: 1229:, and other 1223:corporations 1208: 1204: 1203: 1179: 1175: 1174: 1133: 1129: 1128: 1097: 1072: 1068: 1067: 1036: 1008: 1001: 995: 989: 976: 972: 971: 959: 952:engagement. 950: 946: 935: 931: 926: 915: 895: 886: 864: 840: 828: 822: 816: 809: 803: 801: 794: 792: 787: 784: 777: 763: 739: 711: 694: 690: 689: 658: 654: 650: 634: 628: 609: 600:labor unions 573: 565: 548: 520: 489: 482: 478:carbon paper 462: 438: 421: 406: 400:January 2010 397: 387: 380: 373: 366: 354: 342:Please help 337:verification 334: 305: 298: 278: 277: 96:Consultation 35:Part of the 29: 3615:Term limits 3551:Territories 3397:Mississippi 3312:Connecticut 3131:OpenSecrets 2283:GovTrack.us 1900:govtrack.us 1876:February 1, 1586:January 22, 1518:Jeff Kurzon 1341:Redefining 1217:only, that 1143:Mark Begich 735:game theory 718:John McCain 663:(R-AZ) and 594:(1943) and 523:Progressive 449:Vanderbilts 116:Advertising 3512:Washington 3432:New Mexico 3427:New Jersey 3302:California 3178:2010-06-01 2650:(4): 148. 2379:"defeated" 1702:. Twelve. 1545:Ayres, Ian 1534:References 1523:Money loop 1251:privileges 1235:regulation 1194:Ted Deutch 1083:Ted Deutch 1032:New Jersey 866:neutrality 742:soft money 669:filibuster 508:billboards 492:Mark Hanna 451:, and the 439:After the 370:newspapers 295:soft money 208:Key people 146:Lawn signs 121:Canvassing 84:Management 3522:Wisconsin 3487:Tennessee 3392:Minnesota 3367:Louisiana 2978:0190-8286 2853:Roll Call 2826:Udall, T. 2707:153741622 2664:0015-7120 2313:August 1, 2288:August 1, 2203:Salon.com 1960:August 1, 1935:August 1, 1763:August 3, 1677:August 3, 1610:August 3, 1247:local law 1190:Tom Udall 1092:Tom Udall 923:Ian Ayres 877:talk page 687:of 2002. 538:, strict 528:antitrust 465:Democrats 445:Jay Cooke 441:Civil War 214:Candidate 186:Push poll 176:Attack ad 3696:Category 3507:Virginia 3457:Oklahoma 3437:New York 3412:Nebraska 3402:Missouri 3387:Michigan 3377:Maryland 3362:Kentucky 3342:Illinois 3317:Delaware 3307:Colorado 3297:Arkansas 3187:cite web 3171:ABC News 3146:cite web 3056:Archived 2880:Archived 2755:Archived 2672:20049831 2627:Archived 2349:June 20, 2067:Archived 2008:Archived 1812:Turbotax 1775:(2001). 1696:(2011). 1627:(2009). 1547:(2002). 1492:See also 1483:Archived 1237:through 1163:Congress 1140:Senators 870:disputed 770:Kentucky 665:Feingold 532:lobbying 291:Feingold 3527:Wyoming 3502:Vermont 3407:Montana 3347:Indiana 3327:Georgia 3322:Florida 3292:Arizona 3282:Alabama 2736:May 28, 2092:Findlaw 2073:May 31, 2043:May 31, 2034:(audio) 2014:May 31, 1985:1422616 1930:FEC.gov 1910:May 23, 1739:May 23, 1401:Dissent 1259:federal 1239:federal 1155:Vermont 1011:Arizona 753:or the 512:posters 504:buttons 474:ballots 384:scholar 311:History 109:Message 64:Finance 3462:Oregon 3417:Nevada 3357:Kansas 3332:Hawaii 3287:Alaska 3275:States 2976: 2705: 2670: 2662: 2180: 2095: 2089: 2063:JUSTIA 1983: 1785: 1730: 1706: 1651: 1557: 1369:Ruling 1275:courts 1265:, and 1149:) and 1147:Alaska 681:Meehan 661:McCain 580:Senate 453:Astors 447:, the 386: 379: 372: 365: 357: 287:McCain 3492:Texas 3372:Maine 3337:Idaho 3104:(PDF) 3097:(PDF) 3032:(PDF) 3025:(PDF) 2703:S2CID 2668:JSTOR 2499:(PDF) 2492:(PDF) 2438:(PDF) 2431:(PDF) 2343:(PDF) 2332:(PDF) 2004:slate 1870:(PDF) 1863:(PDF) 1797:Notes 1289:CFR28 1263:state 1245:, or 1243:state 1182:113th 1015:Maine 677:Shays 576:House 391:JSTOR 377:books 3564:Guam 3497:Utah 3452:Ohio 3352:Iowa 3228:2011 3193:link 3152:link 3138:2021 3112:2011 3040:2011 2985:2021 2974:ISSN 2952:2021 2927:2021 2738:2018 2660:ISSN 2612:2018 2586:2018 2559:2008 2533:2008 2507:2008 2446:2006 2414:2011 2391:2011 2351:2008 2315:2024 2290:2024 2265:2011 2215:2011 2178:ISBN 2157:2011 2135:2011 2075:2023 2045:2023 2016:2023 1981:SSRN 1962:2024 1937:2024 1912:2013 1878:2011 1783:ISBN 1765:2005 1741:2013 1728:ISBN 1704:ISBN 1679:2005 1649:ISBN 1612:2005 1588:2010 1555:ISBN 1118:and 1073:The 1021:and 1013:and 977:The 921:and 863:The 774:Whip 720:and 578:and 542:and 363:news 2695:doi 2652:doi 1477:all 1359:In 1153:(I- 1145:(D- 790:). 633:in 346:by 3698:: 3189:}} 3185:{{ 3168:. 3148:}} 3144:{{ 3129:. 3076:. 3013:^ 2972:. 2968:. 2943:. 2918:. 2777:. 2724:. 2701:. 2691:35 2689:. 2666:. 2658:. 2648:79 2646:. 2334:. 2306:. 2281:. 2201:. 2125:. 2108:, 2061:. 2036:. 2002:. 1953:. 1928:. 1898:. 1894:. 1851:^ 1830:^ 1751:. 1665:. 1639:; 1598:. 1578:. 1543:; 1285:. 1261:, 1241:, 1225:, 1221:— 1201:. 1172:. 1006:. 833:. 821:. 761:. 602:. 546:. 510:, 506:, 303:. 3260:e 3253:t 3246:v 3230:. 3195:) 3181:. 3154:) 3140:. 3114:. 3082:. 3042:. 2987:. 2954:. 2929:. 2839:) 2740:. 2709:. 2697:: 2674:. 2654:: 2614:. 2588:. 2561:. 2535:. 2509:. 2448:. 2416:. 2393:. 2353:. 2317:. 2292:. 2267:. 2231:. 2217:. 2186:. 2159:. 2137:. 2077:. 2047:. 2018:. 1987:. 1964:. 1939:. 1914:. 1880:. 1814:. 1791:. 1767:. 1743:. 1712:. 1681:. 1657:. 1614:. 1590:. 1563:. 1329:" 902:) 896:( 891:) 887:( 883:. 873:. 768:( 679:– 413:) 407:( 402:) 398:( 388:· 381:· 374:· 367:· 340:. 289:- 267:e 260:t 253:v 20:)

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge

Campaign finance reform in the United States

Index