Who's Your Donor?

November 2010
New Republic;11/11/2010, Vol. 241 Issue 18, p1
In this article the author discusses aspects of campaign funding in light of the "Citizens United" case adjudicated by the U.S. Supreme Court. The "Citizens United" case ruled that corporate and union funding of independent political advertising cannot be limited and is not subject to disclosure rules. The central focus of the article is on condemnation of this measure and argues that entities should disclose their activities. In addition, the article is critical of Democratic Party efforts to overturn the ruling.


Related Articles

  • MONEY CHANGES Everything. EPPS, GARRETT // American Prospect;May2012, Vol. 23 Issue 4, p32 

    The article discusses the impact of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in the case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission in 2010. It infers that the Court's ruling on corporate personhood has resulted in the use of large amounts of untraceable money for political advertisements. Critics...

  • Groups Try to Cut Flow of Election Bucks.  // Multichannel News;1/23/2012, Vol. 33 Issue 4, p25 

    The article focuses on the Citizens United decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruling which permits corporations and unions to fund electioneering advertisements for and against political candidates in the run-up to election primaries. As stated, decision was a financial boon to...

  • Building a Permanent Majority for Reform. Feingold, Russ // Democracy: A Journal of Ideas;Winter2013, Issue 27, p45 

    The article offers the author's insights on the need for the U.S. Democratic Party to build a mandate for reform to avoid corporate-dominated policy-making and to regain credibility in the country. He relates the decision of the Supreme Court on the case of Citizens United which reflects the...

  • In the Dark.  // Columbia Journalism Review;Jan/Feb2012, Vol. 50 Issue 5, p4 

    The editor reflects on the impact of various legal interpretations of the U.S. First Amendment on campaign-finance law and argues that the amendment has been misconstrued to support moneyed influence. The article comments on the 2010 U.S. Supreme Court "Citizens United" case, the influence of...

  • Spending Spree. Nicholas, Adele // InsideCounsel;Apr2010, Vol. 21 Issue 220, p18 

    The article discusses a court case wherein the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that corporate expenditure of independent political advertisements for candidate elections cannot be limited under the First Amendment to the Constitution. In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the court decided...

  • Who Approves This Message? Shiffrin, Steven H. // Commonweal;2/12/2010, Vol. 137 Issue 3, p8 

    The article discusses the court case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission wherein Citizens United filed a suit in federal court seeking protection for the distribution of the film "Hillary: The Movie." The District Court ruled that airing the movie would violate 2 U.S.C. Section 441b....

  • MILWAUKEE RADIO PUBLIC FILE DATA, 1998-2011: AN EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS OF ISSUE ADVERTISING AFTER THE BCRA AND CITIZENS UNITED. Terry, Christopher; Bard, Mitchell // University of Florida Journal of Law & Public Policy;Apr2013, Vol. 24 Issue 1, p157 

    An essay is presented on the political advertising on the radio with reference to the court case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission of the U.S Supreme Court. Topics discussed non-candidate political advertising on radio in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, impact of adoption of the Bipartisan...

  • We must speak together.  // American City & County Exclusive Insight;10/5/2015, p1 

    The author discusses the increase in the cost of political campaigns in the U.S. and the need to educate affected Americans about voting law changes to stop it. He mentions the U.S. Supreme Court rulings on the Citizens United v the Federal Elections Commission which prohibits the government...

  • Democrats: Kings of Crony Corporatism. Eddlem, Thomas R. // New American (08856540);2/17/2014, Vol. 30 Issue 4, p21 

    The article focuses on the complaint of the Democrats against the U.S. Supreme Court decision in the 2009 Citizens United case which permit companies to spend unlimited money on election communications. It states that the Democratic Party was found to be a more reliable supporter of crony...


Read the Article


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

Try another library?
Sign out of this library

Other Topics