Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1737938
 
 

Citations (2)



 
 

Footnotes (69)



 


 



Citizens United and the Orphaned Antidistortion Rationale


Richard L. Hasen


University of California, Irvine School of Law

January 10, 2011

Georgia State University Law Review, Forthcoming
Loyola-LA Legal Studies Paper No. 2011-02
UC Irvine School of Law Research Paper No. 2011-02

Abstract:     
This brief Essay, written for a symposium in the Georgia State Law Review, considers liberals’ abandonment in the Citizens United case of the “antidistortion” interest for corporate campaign spending limits. Soon after his retirement, Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens gave an interview to the CBS television program 60 Minutes in which he defended corporate spending limits on antidistortion grounds. Reacting to the Stevens interview, the president of Citizens United lauded the Court’s decision on grounds that it would level the playing field. How strange that both the Citizens United prime dissenter and plaintiff described the decision in terms of antidistortion/political equality effects. The irony in this debate is that Mr. Bossie’s group argued before the Supreme Court that the First Amendment barred taking political equality concerns into account in fashioning campaign finance rules, and Justice Stevens’ dissent did its best to avoid acknowledging that it was defending corporate spending limits, in part, on political equality grounds. Justice Stevens’ failure to expressly defend corporate spending limits on political equality grounds came after the government had abandoned the rationale in the Supreme Court.

This Essay argues that the antidistortion argument did not deserve to be orphaned, and remains a key animating principle in thinking about the desirability of campaign finance laws. Part I explains how the antidistortion argument became an orphan in Citizens United, laying the blame with the Solicitor General’s office and with Justice Stevens muddled Citizens United dissent. Part II explains the cost of this orphaning for the future of campaign finance and related laws: keeping the political equality rationale in the closet will make it harder to get legislative and judicial change in the campaign finance arena going forward, and it prevents a full and honest debate about the desirability and cost of campaign finance laws justified on political equality grounds.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 15

Keywords: campaign finance, election law, Citizens United v. FEC, political equality, antidistortion interest

Accepted Paper Series


Download This Paper

Date posted: January 11, 2011  

Suggested Citation

Hasen, Richard L., Citizens United and the Orphaned Antidistortion Rationale (January 10, 2011). Georgia State University Law Review, Forthcoming; Loyola-LA Legal Studies Paper No. 2011-02; UC Irvine School of Law Research Paper No. 2011-02. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1737938

Contact Information

Richard L. Hasen (Contact Author)
University of California, Irvine School of Law ( email )
401 E. Peltason Drive
Suite 1000
Irvine, CA 92697-1000
United States
949 824 3072 (Phone)
949 824 0895 (Fax)
HOME PAGE: http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 4,660
Downloads: 332
Download Rank: 49,852
Citations:  2
Footnotes:  69

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo3 in 0.453 seconds