Announcements

The Institute for the Study of the Judiciary, Politics, and the Media (IJPM) is a collaborative effort between Syracuse University's College of Law, Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, and S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications. IJPM is devoted to the interdisciplinary study of issues at the intersection of law, politics, and the media. The institute sponsors lectures, conferences, and symposia designed to foster discussion and debate between legal scholars, sitting judges, and working journalists. The institute provides research grants and seed money for scholars pursuing law-oriented projects that cut across traditional academic boundaries. The institute also oversees a cross-disciplinary graduate certificate program organized around a team-taught course offerings. To learn more about IJPM and its activities, please visit http://jpm.syr.edu/.



LAW, POLITICS & THE MEDIA eJOURNAL
Sponsored by Institute for the Study of the Judiciary,
Politics, and the Media (IJPM) at Syracuse University

"Breaking BATNAs: Negotiation Lessons from Walter White" Free Download
New Mexico Law Review, Forthcoming

JENNIFER W. REYNOLDS, University of Oregon School of Law
Email:

Walter White could teach us many things: how to read the periodic table; how to destroy a tub with hydrofluoric acid; how to build a battery; how to make poison out of castor beans; how to build a bomb under a wheelchair; how to use the remote control of the car to operate a machine gun; and how to coordinate multiple assassinations of prison informants within thirty seconds of one another. But these are niche skills at best. Is there anything useful we can learn from Walter White?

As it turns out, Walter White can also teach us how to negotiate — or, to put it more precisely, watching Walter White negotiate in Breaking Bad helps us think more clearly about what we are doing when we negotiate. For the student of negotiation, Breaking Bad is an absolute treasure trove, producing an incredibly complex and varied array of bargaining parties and negotiated transactions, week after week. What’s so fascinating about these transactions is that they draw on familiar, foundational negotiation concepts in the service of less familiar, usually illicit ends. Put another way, when we watch Walter White negotiate, we watch a mega-criminal anti-hero implement the same “value-neutral? strategies that we teach lawyers and businesspeople. Learning to negotiate from Walter White, therefore, allows us to engage in an analytical exercise that explores the conventional wisdom around negotiation in a fresh, modern context, while implicating more critical conversations around value neutrality and other normative concerns in negotiation theory and practice.

Breaking Bad ran for five seasons. In this article, I have chosen five negotiations, one from each season, each featuring Walter White. For these five negotiations, I provide close readings that show how the negotiations demonstrate and/or disrupt foundational negotiation concepts or skills. I then suggest some possible takeaways for negotiators and analysts. The article concludes with a brief thought about ethical implications in negotiation theory and practice.

"Developments in Intermediary Liability" Free Download
Research Handbook On EU Internet Law, Andrej Savin and Jan Trzaskowski (eds), Edward Elgar (2014)

ANDRÉS GUADAMUZ, University of Sussex
Email:

This article looks at the more recent efforts to erode the principles of limitation of liability that have served as the cornerstone of Internet regulation for some years. We will briefly study existing legislation and then we will chart the latest efforts to see the attacks on these limits, particularly by the introduction of graduated response, and the case law that seeks other solutions, such as filtering and blocking.

"McCutcheon Calls for a National Referendum on Campaign Finance (Literally)" Free Download
114 Colum. L. Rev. Sidebar 84

ANDREW TUTT, Yale University - Information Society Project, Yale University - Law School
Email:

In McCutcheon v. FEC, the Supreme Court tightened First Amendment limits on Congress’s authority to regulate campaign financing. McCutcheon ostensibly left in place the old regime that allows campaign-finance regulation so long as it strikes at quid pro quo corruption or its appearance. But two recurring themes in the McCutcheon opinion indicate that this standard will from hereon be more difficult to meet. One is that campaign-finance laws prevent individuals from participating meaningfully in democratic change. The second is that Congress cannot be trusted to pass campaign-finance laws because such laws are tainted by self-interest. As Chief Justice Roberts wrote in McCutcheon’s plurality opinion, “[T]hose who govern should be the last people to help decide who should govern.? This Essay argues that these two themes actually chart a way forward for those who wish to see greater regulation of campaign financing. If Congress were to hold a national referendum to reenact the limits the Supreme Court struck down in McCutcheon, those limits would be constitutional even though the same limits passed by Congress were not. The reason is that limits backed by a popular vote would satisfy McCutcheon’s concerns with congressional self-dealing while vindicating directly its concern with maximizing each individual’s opportunity to take an active part in democratic self-governance. Moreover, an answer from the People themselves to the most relevant question in any campaign-finance case — whether a practice gives rise to the appearance of corruption — is the best way one could imagine for discovering whether it does so. One might say that McCutcheon literally calls for a referendum on campaign finance. This Essay explores this notion in depth and closes by assessing the constitutionality and practicality of the referendum option.

"Corporate Crime and the Corporate Agenda for Crime Control: Disappearing Awareness of Corporate Crime and Increasing Abuses of Power" Free Download
Western Criminology Review 14(2):38-51, 2013

PAUL LEIGHTON, Eastern Michigan University - Dept of Sociology, Anthropology & Criminology
Email:

This paper is part of a symposium based around Gregg Barak's book Theft of a Nation. After reviewing several highlights from the book, this paper explores the factors that corrupt the criminological imagination about crimes of the powerful and especially corporate power. The first section, “Size matters,? helps stimulate thinking about the sheer size of corporations and why it is important. Subsequent sections briefly review the impact this has on law making and enforcement. Equally problematic is the lack of white collar and corporate crime in national “crime? reports. This is especially a problem when governments partner with financial institutions to address fraud, and where industry funds research reports on its own victimization without similar resources going to study victimization of the public by industry and commerce. A final section provides a reminder about the corporate ownership of media.

"Legalizing Recreational Marijuana: Comparing Ballot Outcomes in Four States" Free Download
Journal of Qualitative Criminal Justice and Criminology, Vol. 2, No. 2, October 2014

RONALD WEITZER, George Washington University
Email:

Medical marijuana is now available in 23 states, and its growing acceptance has paved the way for the legalization of recreational marijuana. This article examines four recent campaigns to legalize recreational marijuana – two failures and two successes. Using data from newspaper sources, interviews with key players, and other sources, we examine the factors that influence whether a ballot initiative succeeds or fails. We identify similarities and differences between the four measures, the social forces shaping the debate, their claims and counterclaims, and a set of factors that appear to increase the odds that a recreational marijuana ballot measure will be successful.

"Ending Farm Subsidies: Unplowed Common Ground" Free Download

MATTHEW D. MITCHELL, George Mason University - Mercatus Center
Email:

In recent years, food stamps have constituted about 80 percent of farm bill spending, which may be why nearly 100 percent of public debate has focused there. Unfortunately, with all of the attention on food stamps, both political parties have missed the opportunity for reform that lies in the remaining 20 percent of the farm bill.

^top

About this eJournal

Sponsored by: Institute for the Study of the Judiciary, Politics, and the Media (IJPM) at Syracuse University.


Legal systems operate in a complex environment of principle, political pressure, and media coverage. The goal of the Law, Politics, and the Media subject eJournal is to distribute abstracts of working papers and articles that promote a more integrated understanding of law, courts, and their environment. To this end, the eJournal seeks scholarship that addresses any combination of legal, political, and media-related themes in the analysis of legal institutions, beliefs, and practices. The eJournal is open to work from the social sciences, the humanities, and the legal academy. Papers and articles that focus on the United States, as well as scholarship that is comparative or international in scope, are welcome.

Submissions

To submit your research to SSRN, sign in to the SSRN User HeadQuarters, click the My Papers link on left menu and then the Start New Submission button at top of page.

Distribution Services

If your organization is interested in increasing readership for its research by starting a Research Paper Series, or sponsoring a Subject Matter eJournal, please email: RPS@SSRN.com

Distributed by

Legal Scholarship Network (LSN), a division of Social Science Electronic Publishing (SSEP) and Social Science Research Network (SSRN)

Directors

LSN SUBJECT MATTER EJOURNALS

BERNARD S. BLACK
Northwestern University - School of Law, Northwestern University - Kellogg School of Management, European Corporate Governance Institute (ECGI)
Email: bblack@northwestern.edu

RONALD J. GILSON
Stanford Law School, Columbia Law School, European Corporate Governance Institute (ECGI)
Email: rgilson@leland.stanford.edu

Please contact us at the above addresses with your comments, questions or suggestions for LSN-Sub.

Advisory Board

Law, Politics & the Media eJournal

LYLE DENNISTON
Reporter, SCOTUSblog

CHARLES G. GEYH
John F. Kimberling Professor of Law, Indiana University School of Law-Bloomington

TONY MAURO
Supreme Court Correspondent, Legal Times/Incisive Media

MICHAEL MCCANN
Gordon Hirabayashi Professor for Advancement of Citizenship; Director, Comparative Law and Society Studies (CLASS) Center, University of Washington - Department of Political Science

AUSTIN SARAT
William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Jurisprudence & Political Science, Amherst College