Search

Partisan polarization has infected our politics at levels not seen in decades. But what happens when the contamination spreads to the institutions responsible for regulating the political process itself? At the Federal Election Commission (FEC), nothing. Under the FEC's governing statute, the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), any serious action the agency undertakes must be supported by a bipartisan supermajority of commissioners. When the six commissioners fail to reach such consensus--or "deadlock"--due to partisanship or otherwise, nothing happens at all: no investigations, no regulations, no enforcement of federal campaign finance laws. For the first few decades of the FEC's existence, these deadlocks were mostly harmless, if still frustrating. Thanks to FECA, even inaction by the FEC was subject to a critical safeguard: judicial review. But since 2018, the D.C. Circuit has found Heckler v. Chaney to bar review of deadlocks in which the commissioners voting against an enforcement action invoke the agency's prosecutorial discretion. Consequently, a non-majority bloc of commissioners can refuse to support any or all enforcement proceedings--even for entirely partisan purposes--with little to no judicial oversight, simply by referencing the agency's discretion in their reasoning. This Article attempts to resolve this stalemate by proposing a framework to guide judicial review of these deadlock dismissals. Based on the Chevron "Step Zero" of United States v. Mead Corp. and its foundation in legal process principles of institutional competency, this two-part framework limits Chaney's preclusion of review to agency actions that carry the "force of law." Because FEC deadlock dismissals represent a failure of the Commission to speak authoritatively as a whole, they do not carry the force of law, and thus are reviewable. For these and other agency actions that fail this "Chaney Step Zero," the framework also provides a less absolute but still deferential inquiry to evaluate the persuasiveness of the agency's invocation of its discretion--a prosecutorial-discretion analogue of Skidmore v. Swift. While this framework is designed to combat the gridlock plaguing the FEC, its principled and organized approach to Chaney's application has the potential to guide judicial review of discretionary action throughout the administrative state. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article reports that the U.S. Federal Election Commission (FEC) makes two main changes to online disclaimers. It mentions technology had transformed, leaving an advertising regime designed for "websites" increasingly obsolete in a world of wearables, smart devices, and apps. It also mentions requirements of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 and disclaimer policies of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA).

The article provides an overview on women in politics in then U.S. Topics include the Federal Elections Campaign Act current position on allowing candidates to pay for child care for their children using campaign funds; the take of Federal Elections Commission on campaigns for elected office; and the U.S. Supreme Court case Buckley v. Valeo on campaign finance.

The article focuses on federal campaign finance law, focusing on the limits on individual contributions to party committees and the arguable lack of limits on candidate committee contributions to party committees. It mentions growing prominence of self-funded campaigns in U.S. politics and the threat of quid pro quo corruption that such campaigns pose under existing regulation. It also mentions proposal to the legislative amendment to Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA).

The article examine the history of the establishment of the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and key considerations that shaped its form and structure. Topics discussed include perceived failures of the FEC may mean for election administration in areas other than campaign finance; passage of the 1974 Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) Amendments and growing political pressure to solve other electoral disputes most notably gerrymandering.

The article discusses how legal reforms related to political parties and campaign finance helped to propel the campaign industry's rise in the U.S. It mentions about policy debates surrounding money in politics and political parties; enactment of Federal Election Campaign Act for conducting safe elections; and Buckley v. Valeo court case on the same.

Since the 2016 presidential election cycle, there has been renewed interest in prohibiting foreign interference in U.S. elections. Currently, federal law prohibits foreign nationals from making cont ributions or expenditures to influence federal, state, or local elections. This provision of the Federal Election Campaign. Act has survived constitutional challenge. The Department of Justice has the authority to prosecute violators of these offenses. For these reasons, the so-called foreign nationals ban should be a federal prosecutor's greatest tool to punish and deter foreign nationals and foreign governments from interfering in our elections. The provision, hoiuever, remains little-used and misunderstood. Moreover, recent developments in campaign finance law have clouded the statute's reach. As a result, foreign nationals and foreign governments are not deterred from seeking to exert, influence in U.S. elections at the federal, state, and local levels. In fact, they have become more creative in how they do so. This Article is a reflection on. the. use of the foreign nationals ban to punish criminal violations of election law. This will include reflecting on examples of prosecutions under the provision, including cases involving Chinese government-linked funds in the 1996 presidential campaign, foreign nationals funneling money into a local mayoral election, and even the efforts of a foreign national who operated adult websites to oppose a local ballot measure, intimately, the Article concludes that the federal law is unable to sufficiently punish criminal violators and deter foreign interference. In conclusion, the Article will offer suggestions for strengthening the law to root out corruption and protect our elections from foreign influence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the lawyers perspectives on the consequences of U.S. Supreme Court case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission addressing limits on corporate and union expenditures in federal elections. Topics include relationship between Supreme Court and American politics; impact of Citizens United court case on political process; and Buckley v. Valeo court case on Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971.

Introduction What can be done in 730 days? The possibilities are seemingly endless--this is America after all. However, to the incumbents and candidates fighting to win votes for a seat [...]

Dozens of multimember agencies across the federal government are subject to partisan balance requirements, which mandate that no more than a simple majority of agency members may hail from a single party. Administrative law scholars and political scientists have questioned whether these provisions meaningfully affect the ideological composition of federal agencies. In theory, Presidents can comply with these requirements by appointing ideologically sympathetic members of the opposite party once they have filled their quota of same-party appointees (i.e., a Democratic President can appoint liberal Republicans or a Republican President can appoint conservative Democrats). No multiagency study in the past fifty years, however, has examined whether--in practice--partisan balance requirements actually prevent Presidents from selecting like-minded individuals for cross-party appointments. This Article fills that gap. We gather data on 578 appointees to twenty-three agencies over the course of six presidencies and thirty-six years. We identify the estimated ideological preferences of those appointees based on personal campaign contributions. We then compare the ideological preferences of co-party and cross-party appointees across agencies and across presidencies. The analysis indicates that partisan balance requirements had at most a modest impact on the ideological composition of multimember agencies from the late 1970s to the early 1990s but a stronger effect from the mid-1990s onward. This Article considers several possible explanations for these findings. The results are consistent with a story of "partisan sort": As ideology and party affiliation have become more tightly linked, cross-party appointees have become more likely to share the ideological preferences of their copartisans rather than those of the appointing President. The findings suggest that the increasing polarization of political parties is contributing to a concomitant increase in the ideological heterogeneity of multimember agencies subject to partisan balance mandates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the author's views about the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in the campaign finance and freedom of speech case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (FEC), and it mentions constitutional law in America, as well as the attitudes of U.S. Supreme Court Justices such as Samuel Alito and Anthony Kennedy. The American Congress' passage of amendments to the nation's Federal Election Campaign Act is examined.

The article focuses on the changing field of corporate campaign contributions as applied to federal contractors in the U.S. Topics discussed include implications of Wagner v. Federal Election Commission court case on corporate campaign contributions; enactment of Federal Election Campaign Act for addressing the same; and an account of corporations and individuals interested in influencing federal elections.

The article discusess the contravercies surrounding 2016 presidential campaign of the U.S. President Donald Trump. Topics discussed include enactment of Federal Election Campaign Act for governing illegal election finance; Russia's hacking of the Democratic National Committee computer system; and court cases Buckley v. Valeo, and Citizens United v. FEC on the same.

The article discusess laws governing elections in the U.S., and includes campaign finance and election fraud offenses; enactment of Federal Election Campaign Act and Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act for addressing the same; and free speech challenges of the acts.

In the 2016 presidential election, many candidates delayed announcing their candidacy until long after anyone who was paying attention realized that they were considering a run for office. In the past, these candidates may have been considered to be "testing the waters," a special status proscribed by the Federal Election Campaign Act ("FECA") that still requires full compliance with federal campaign finance laws but allows potential candidates to test the efficacy of a candidacy without having to publicly disclose any campaign contributions or expenditures unless they decide to run. The 2016 election, however, was special. Several eventual candidates took extreme measures to not only avoid candidacy, but also to avoid admitting they were even testing the waters of a candidacy, in order to engage in activities--like coordinating with their super PACs--that would otherwise be prohibited by FECA. This Note contends that a potential candidate cannot avoid being subject to FECA simply by denying they are considering a run for office. First, it gives a brief overview the testing the waters provision and the current state of federal campaign finance law. Then, it examines the pre-candidacy activity of the 2016 presidential candidates. Finally, it proposes a straightforward rule to determine whether such pre-candidacy activity triggers testing the waters status. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As a result of the recent Citizens United decision and its "Super PAC" spawn, individuals, corporations, and unions are allowed to independently spend unlimited amounts to influence elections. The ramifications of the Citizens United ruling have seemingly had a grave impact on the 2016 Presidential Election. In addition to examining the laws--and their loopholes--of political campaign contributions, this Essay will also explore the economics of campaign contributions. Ultimately, there are two reasons as to why corporations provide such large sums of money: one is rent creation, which is the attempt to gain political favors for "special interests;" the second is rent extraction, which is an attempt to avoid political disfavors. As the behavior of candidates continues to resemble the practices of bribery and extortion, campaign finance reform efforts are likely to become more aggressive--in an effort to curb corruption, or the appearance of corruption. Moreover, in the wake of Justice Scalia's death, the Court may consider revisiting and overturning Citizens United. As such, this Essay will investigate potential solutions to combat the lax campaign finance laws. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

"...[W]hen we compare the dray-horse and race-horse, the dromedary and camel, the various breeds of sheep fitted either for cultivated land or mountain pasture, with the wool of one breed good for one purpose and that of another breed for another purpose; when we compare the many breeds of dogs, each good for man in different ways; when we compare the game-cock, so pertinacious in battle, with other breeds so little quarrelsome, with 'everlasting layers' which never desire to sit and with the bantam so small and elegant; when we compare the host of agricultural, culinary, orchard and flower-garden races of plants, most useful to man at different seasons and for different purposes, or so beautiful in his eyes, we must, I think, look further than to mere variability." [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the protections granted to free speech, campaign finance and academy under U.S. Constitution First Amendment and issues surrounding the same in the U.S. Topics discussed include enactment of Federal Election Campaign Act for addressing the same; Buckley v. Valeo court case on same; and Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission court case on same.

The article presents U.S. Supreme Court case Buckley v. Valeo concerning campaign finance. In this case the court held that limits on election spending in the Federal Election Campaign Act are unconstitutional and ruled that expenditure limits contravene the U.S. Constitution First Amendment provision on freedom of speech because a restriction on spending for political communication necessarily reduces the quantity of expression and limited the Federal Election Commission's power.