TITLE

Clean Elections may finally be washed up

AUTHOR(S)
Hamer, Glenn
PUB. DATE
September 2008
SOURCE
Inside Tucson Business;9/22/2008, Vol. 18 Issue 16, p32
SOURCE TYPE
Periodical
DOC. TYPE
Article
ABSTRACT
The article reports on the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court to struck down a federal campaign finance law in Tucson, Arizona. The decision aims to finally washed up Arizona's experiment with tax-payer-financed elections. Taxpayer-financed elections restrict candidate's ability to communicate with voters and distorts the speech of donors. It is stated that the decision flamed the fire under an existing Arizona Clean Elections lawsuit filed by the Institute for Injustice.
ACCESSION #
34540339

 

Related Articles

  • The Race Is On. Fischer, Raymond L. // USA Today Magazine;Nov2011, Vol. 140 Issue 2798, p18 

    The article asserts that the 2010 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in the Citizens United versus (v.) the Federal Election Commission overturning a long-term trend to limit political spending of corporations will set the stage for a lucrative 2012 presidential campaign. It mentions that the...

  • A Gift to Millionaires. Wasserman, David // National Journal;7/5/2008, p3 

    The article focuses on a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that invalidates the millionaire's amendment, the provision of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act that seeks to level the playing field for House or Senate candidates who face wealthy opponents writing big checks for their own campaigns. It...

  • ON DEJUDICIALIZING AMERICAN CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAW. Briffault, Richard // Georgia State University Law Review;Summer2011, Vol. 27 Issue 4, p887 

    The article focuses on the importance to dejudicialize the American campaign finance law. It reviews the internal problems of the Supreme Court's the campaign finance doctrine as well as its inconsistencies and practical and theoretical difficulties. It discusses the corporation treatment,...

  • High-Court Hypocrisy. Alter, Jonathan // Newsweek (Atlantic Edition);2/1/2010 (Atlantic Edition), Vol. 155 Issue 5, p17 

    The article offers the author's views on a January 2010 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn election spending limits placed on corporations. The case involving the corporate-backed organization Citizens United and the U.S. Federal Election Commission is discussed. Supreme Court Chief...

  • High-Court Hypocrisy. Alter, Jonathan // Newsweek (Pacific Edition);2/1/2010 (Pacific Edition), Vol. 155 Issue 5, p19 

    The article offers the author's views on a January 2010 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn election spending limits placed on corporations. The case involving the corporate-backed organization Citizens United and the U.S. Federal Election Commission is discussed. Supreme Court Chief...

  • CITIZENS UNITED AND THE ORPHANED ANTIDISTORTION RATIONALE. Hasen, Richard L. // Georgia State University Law Review;Summer2011, Vol. 27 Issue 4, p989 

    An essay is presented on the rationale of orphaned antidistortion in the court case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (FEC) in the U.S. It discusses how the argument concerning antidistortion became an orphan in Citizens United blaming the dissent of Supreme Court Justice John Paul...

  • Should Media Consultants Really Jump for Joy? D'Aprile, Shane // Politics (Campaigns & Elections);Mar2010, Vol. 31 Issue 3, p14 

    The article talks about the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the case of Citizens United and the potential response to media consultants to the decision. It cites several disadvantages such as the rise in expenditures, creating a strategic problem for candidate campaigns, more airway clutter, and...

  • Fighting Campaign Finance Reform. Kosterlitz, Julie // National Journal;9/5/2009, p5 

    The article deals with the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court to hold a rehearing of Citizens United versus Federal Election Commission on September 9, 2009, and its impact on the legal challenges against campaign finance laws filed by James Bopp. It outlines the arguments raised by Bopp against...

  • Representatives Chris Van Hollen (MD-D) and David Price (NC-D), Amici Curiae. Waxman, Seth P. // Supreme Court Debates;Nov2013, Vol. 16 Issue 8, p31 

    No abstract available.

Share

Read the Article

Courtesy of THE LIBRARY OF VIRGINIA

Sorry, but this item is not currently available from your library.

Try another library?
Sign out of this library

Other Topics