Nexus: Chapman's Journal of Law and Public Policy

As Editor-in-Chief of Nexus: Chapman’s Journal of Law and Policy, I am pleased to announce our 16th edition and Symposium entitled, “Citizens Divided on Citizens United: Campaign Finance Reform and the First Amendment.” Our journal has prided itself on presenting interesting, timely and important topics, and this year is no different. Heralded as a win for free speech by some, and lambasted as another concession to corporate interests by others, the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission has certainly created division along party and ideological lines. Nexus seeks to explore the legal reasoning behind ...

With the 2010 midterm elections now complete, scholars are beginning to assess the impact of the Citizens United Supreme Court decision. Some experts are estimating that over three billion dollars were spent on the campaign, which set new records for the amounts of advertisements purchased. Most of the advertisements were those for television, and in nearly every state television viewers were inundated with advertisements at each commercial break, with advertisements increasing in frequency in the weeks leading up to the election.

In California, the governor's race broke spending records, with the LA Times estimating that almost two hundred and ...

Now that the election season is finally over it is a good time to take a look at the first election Post-Citizens United.

I must preface this discussion with the realization that the impact of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United campaign finance decision is hugely controversial. Not only did a divided court rule on Citizens United, but a divided country can’t decide to what degree the Citizens United decision affected the election landscape.

However, certain facts are undisputed. In the first midterm election that followed the Citizens United decision more money was spent than ever before. What is ...

It seems everyone has negative connotations and thoughts when it comes to this decision by the Supreme Court. A poll was taken, and both Democrats and Republicans agree; they are unhappy with the result. Eighty percent of respondents to this poll said they disagree with the Court’s decision to allow unrestrained political corporate spending. Sixty five percent of those responding said that they “strongly opposed” the decision. What was interesting about this poll was the seemingly even handed opposition by both Democrat and Republican voters.

It seems that the new focus is how to require corporations to disclose. Since ...

With the conclusion of the 2010 midterm elections, it would seem as if breath of fresh air has infiltrated our public airways. No more ominous commercials citing the demise of democracy lest the opposing party’s candidate gets elected, no more ads trying to paint the “issues” in the worst colors possible, and no more out-of-context jabs at the opponent we’ve all seen flashing across our television screens.

Not so fast.

2012 elections are a hop, skip, and a corporate-funded political ad away.

For Democrats who are still mourning the loss of control of the House, the 2012 elections ...

We have been discussing Citizens United since the September. The main focus has consistently been on this midterm election and the effects the decision of the Supreme Court in Citizens United will have on future elections. Corporations now allowed under the Constitution to fund the political campaigns of its favored candidates. After reading through some of the blog postings, I started to think about how this case came before the Supreme Court in the first place and what started the entire controversy and I recalled that it had begun because of Hillary: The Movie. My curiosity caused me to find ...

Back in January of 2010, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 130 S.Ct. 876 (2010), effectively decided the issue of whether the framers of the U.S. Constitution intended for corporations to have a role in our electoral process. However, a brief look back at the history that laid the foundation for the highly controversial Supreme Court decision may suggest that allowing for corporations to have a role in our electoral process was not so much the intention of our Constitution’s framers as it was the unintended result of a Chief Justice’s passing remark and the court ...

With all the talk about the Citizens United case, many people are losing trust in their politicians. The fact that they are able to receive unlimited funds from different corporations is almost a sure recipe for corruption. So yes, the people have lost some faith in their representatives, but have THEY also lost faith in us, the voters? There seemed to be a time where be both trusted each other…what happened?

I am taking constitutional law this year and it’s interesting to see how each branch of government has evolved over time. Besides being an extremely difficult class ...

Now that the 2010 midterm elections have concluded, we can truly look at the effects of the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United. Citizens United was the Supreme Court case decided earlier this year ruling that the First Amendment allowed corporate funding of independent political advertisements during elections. Chapman’s Nexus Journal members have previously posted both praise and criticism of the Citizens United holding in this blog, while trying to mare predictions regarding its potential impact on elections in the future. This month’s midterm election process provided a revelation on the effects of the Supreme Court’s ...

Financial contributions to political campaigns come from a variety of sources from individuals to corporations, even foreign corporations. Since the Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United, it has been made clear that political contributions are a form of speech protected by the 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution and that this protection extends to fictional entities (i.e. corporations, non-profit organizations) just as it would to an individual. Without engaging a debate on whether these entities should be extended the same protections under the Constitution as individuals, the question that may be posed is, “What other restrictions can be ...

In the discussion of Citizens United, those disfavoring the decision often quote Justice Stevens dissent. In a 5-4 ideologically split decision, it is not uncommon to have considerable discussion after the decision, with those favoring the dissent latching onto an emotionally powerful statement. It is uncommon when the conservative wing of the court is in the majority supporting free speech, and the liberal minority coming out against it. The liberal wing probably got it wrong, as even the American Civil Liberties Union filed a brief in support of Citizen’s United’s position. At least the ACLU is ideologically consistent ...

The 2010 midterm elections taught American citizens, federal government officials and state lawmakers many lessons, some which were probably very difficult for certain political groups to swallow. Interestingly, the most important of these lessons may be that perhaps money really can buy happiness. This election proved that the foundation of our nation, democracy, is still alive and strong in this country. Due to factors such as our unrecovered economy, hardly any change in unemployment rate, the persistence of the war on terrorism, and the uncertainty of President Obama’s healthcare bill, America was exceedingly nervous about the present and future ...

When the Citizens United decision was announced, there was a raucous uproar among those who disagreed with the decision. President Obama went so far as to rebuke the Supreme Court at the State of the Union Address in front of a national audience, while wrongly stating the ruling’s effect on precedent and foreign influence. In addition, he stated that “this decision gives corporations and other special interests the power to spend unlimited amounts of money -- literally millions of dollars -- to affect elections throughout our country. This, in turn, will multiply their influence over decision-making in our government." FN1. He ...

In the wake of outcry over the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizen’s United, I cannot help but wonder what has happened to the faith in ourselves as politically independent-minded voters. Fear of numerous big budget political propaganda funded by large corporations may be legitimate, but in my opinion such Hollywood productions should never be able to skew a voter who is confident in his or her own research and interpretations on the American politics which they live on a daily basis.

If we resign ourselves to the opinion that money wins elections, the democratic process may deteriorate to ...

There has been a great deal of speculation on how the Citizens United decision would affect politics, campaigns, and the outcome of elections in the United States. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission set a new stage for campaigning, allowing unlimited spending by corporations and unions in political campaigns. After the midterm elections that took place last week on November 02, 2010, the focus now rests on how campaign spending shaped the outcome of the election across the nation. The 2010 midterm elections were record-breaking in the realm of campaign spending. Independent groups have reported spending $270 million on the ...

The day after losing 54 House seats and 8 Senate seats, President Clinton said, “We were held accountable yesterday and I accept my share of the responsibility." FN1. Despite such a devastating defeat, President Clinton would go on to win re-election in 1996. This re-election was in large part attributable to his famous triangulation strategy. On the advice of Dick Morris, Clinton’s political advisor, Clinton began to adopt certain Republican policies to maximum political gain and popularity. FN2.

What will be interesting to see is if President Obama will follow President Clinton’s example or if he will become ...

The dust has finally settled on what was a competitive, fierce, and damaging (for Democrats) election. Defeated politicians are reveling in defeat, and President Obama has recognized that the American people want and demand change. All over the country, the Republican Party picked up seats in state legislatures, governorships, and in congress. In the House of Representatives, Republicans now control 239 seats while the Democrats are left with 187. In the Senate, the GOP was unable to size control, but they were successful in reducing the Democrats majority control. The Senate now stands at 46 Republican held seats, 51 Democrat ...

As I am writing this we are currently in the aftermath of the November 2, 2010 election. With the clock ticking down to the final minutes, political campaign ads were everywhere. This election season has seen a tremendous amount of ads attacking the candidates and issues on the ballot. It is difficult to remember the amount of campaign ads from just two years ago but it seems as though this election had more campaign ads and more attack ads then ever before. I could not turn on the television without being bombarded by ads threatening the end of civilization as ...

Whew. What a relief! It’s November 3, 2010, that election is over, and the world didn’t end. Color me pleased.

The elections that were made throughout the country may help us to see what effect, if any, the Citizens United decision has had so far. It appears, though, that it will take some time to tease out any useful data.

A consensus has been building that, in the end, Citizens United didn’t really accomplish much. Truthfully, it is too early to make a final pronouncement, but it certainly seems as though election business marches on in much ...

The Nexus Journal of Law and Policy held it’s annual Symposium entitled “Citizens Divided on Citizens United: Campaign Finance Reform and the 1st Amendment” on October 22, 2010. The event turned out to be a huge success due to a highly intelligent, captivating panel of speakers. The speakers all had a wide array of opinions on the controversial Citizens United case. After doing an extensive amount of research on the case myself and forming my own opinions on the topic, it was interesting hearing others take on the different outcomes the case might have on the United States political ...

Today is November 1st. It is the eve of the midterm elections. Newspapers, magazines and other media sources are strewn with articles with titles like “The balance of power is at stake”, “Gridlock threat looms over Congress”, and “GOP set for gains as voters voice anger.” It has been said that this election has the potential of bringing great change to the nation. Grassroots groups like the Tea Party are kicking butt and taking names. Incumbents that have become household names as fixtures in Washington D.C. may be ousted. This is supposed to be a time excitement but, personally ...

I recently attended a legal symposium entitled “Citizens Divided on Citizen’s United: Campaign Finance Reform and the First Amendment.” This event was hosted by Nexus: Chapman’s Journal of Law and Policy. The greatest part of the event was that it lived up to its name. Citizens were at the very least – divided (don’t expect the same from me).

It was a true example of academia at its best. The event featured some of the foremost experts on campaign law. This culminated in a Keynote Presentation by Grant Davis-Denny and Benjamin Ginsberg, gentlemen who both spend an inordinate ...

The First Amendment of our Constitution states that “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…” This right has been vigorously protected throughout the years since the creation of our great nation. Some have argued that to prevent corporations from donating treasury funds to a specific political candidate’s campaign would be a violation of that corporation’s freedom of speech. However, is this really the freedom protected under our Constitution?

To answer this we must first determine whether or not investment in a particular candidate’s is in fact speech. Overtime, courts have ...

We, The Nexus Journal of Law and Policy, hosted our annual Symposium this year on the topic of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. I'm proud to say I was part of such a fabulous production and gathering of diverse, intelligent scholars. We had presenters on the faaaar left and presenters on the faaaaar right, and the ideological dichotomy engaged the captive audience, myself included.

Grant Davis-Denny, an Associate at Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP and Board Member of the California Common Clause, kicked off the keynote presentation. Mr. Hugh Hewitt, Chapman University School of Law Professor, Academic Advisor to ...

Our journal, the Nexus Journal of Law and Policy, held its annual Symposium entitled “Citizens Divided on Citizens United: Campaign Finance Reform and the 1st Amendment” last Friday, October 22, 2010. The Symposium began with an interesting panel of speakers- including a Constitutional law professor, a journalism scholar, and an election law researcher. Each of them expressed concern over the recent Supreme Court decision in Citizens United in which the Supreme Court struck down parts of the McCain-Fiengold Act that prohibited corporations from spending money on express advocacy for a political candidate within a specific time frame before an upcoming ...

Money talks, there’s no doubt about it. And, according to the recent Supreme Court decision, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, apparently so do corporations. Citizens United v. FEC, 175 L. Ed. 2d 753 (U.S. 2010). Neither are persons, neither have a body or soul, but both now have the power of persuasion. According to Citizens United, corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited under the First Amendment. Money from a corporation to go toward politics may come from the general treasury fund of the corporation, without the consent, or even knowledge, of ...

The First Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” U.S. Cont. amend I.

Can we say that by limiting the amount one can spend to pursue their right is an infringement of it? Did the cases overturned by Citizens United actually prohibit corporate speech? Did those cases say, look MegaCorp, you cannot say this? Or did they merely impose ...

First, a few comments on Chapman’s recent Symposium which turned out to be an enormous success. All of the panelists brought fresh and exciting points of view to the table and I found all of the speakers to have interesting and unique perspectives on the many impacts of the Citizens United decision. All of the speakers spoke in a clear and convincing manner and highlighted aspects of the decision and their impact on the nation, in ways most never would think of. I would like to thank the Nexus Journal for bringing all of these collective works together and ...

The issue of whether the government should be able to suppress political speech from corporations has been and continues to be highly debated on both sides. After the Supreme Court decision of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission this January, the topic has become an even hotter subject of debate. Citizens United v. FEC, 175 L. Ed. 2d 753 (U.S. 2010). Everyone has a different answer to the same questions. How could the Supreme Court open up the flood gates of corporate spending in political debates? Are corporations really included under the Bill of Rights? Is there a way ...

The recent decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (Citizens United) is hardly the huge blow to democracy that its naysayers purport it to be. Rather, it is an affirmation by our highest court of the fundamentals of what political free of speech means; namely, the ability by any person or association of persons to honestly express their views and opinions before an election. Recognizing that democracy is ultimately founded on the will of the people and not the money spent in financing political speech, the Court in Citizens United made the right decision in holding that limits on ...

As Editor-in-Chief, I am proud to say that I am one of the first who will laud the importance of the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC. This is not simply because I have a vested interest in the success of our upcoming Symposium on October 22, 2010, nor because I have a similarly vested interest in the success of our publication on the Symposium topic; it is because the Court’s decision was truly remarkable.

Citizens United is remarkable due to its impact on First Amendment jurisprudence, the media, and campaign finance reform in general. The ...

Say what you want about the highly controversial, 5-4 Supreme Court decision in Citizens United, it is hard to deny that we are living in some pretty exciting times, wouldn’t you say? Again, Citizens United held that since the First Amendment requires that Congress do not create laws that abridge the freedom of speech, previous legislation prohibiting corporations from funding political advertisement during election campaigns was ruled unconstitutional. It is very easy to get lost in the morass of debate and public clamor surrounding this January decision, but I think we should all try to appreciate the moment for ...

The strong influence corporations and other special interest organizations have over politics is undisputable. In my prior blog I expressed that these groups must be having success by influencing politics because they continue to openly spend millions of dollars supporting “their” candidate. As mentioned before, these groups have very clear motives and yet we still blame them for trying to achieve these motives. I analogized this line of thought with blaming the mistress for a spouse’s infidelity, when really the spouse needs to be kicked out of the House (maybe a little pun intended). So, the question became, “How ...

This year, the Supreme Court cleared the way for unlimited spending by corporations, unions and other interest groups on election campaign advertisements in its five to four decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. 130 S.Ct. 876, 896-914 (2010). Many claim that, as a result, campaign spending has dramatically increased while donor transparency has significantly decreased. The Washington Post reports that interest groups are spending five times as much on the 2010 Congressional Elections as they did on the 2006 midterm elections. According to T.W. Farnam and Dan Eggen of the Washington Post, “the $80 million spent ...

As time goes on and big corporations continue to allocate billions of dollars to donate to campaigns, the possible corruption that may result (or has resulted?) cannot be denied. Whether you think a citizen’s right to free speech through donations is a constitutionally protected right or not, the possibility for that right to reach too far and adversely affect the very core of our democracy, the election process, should be a concern of everyone’s. I think we can all agree, something should be done to ensure the sanctity of our election process that today, may almost seem like ...

As I sat down to write this blog post, pondering the effect that Citizens United has had – and will continue to have – on the election process, I realized that it is already October, and the consequences of allowing unlimited political spending will soon become very clear. With the midterm elections only a month away, it will soon become impossible to avoid the slew of campaign ads on television, radio, and every other media outlet possible. Already, interest groups have increased the amount of spending by fivefold in the current midterm election campaigns as compared to the 2006 elections, resulting in ...

In honor of our symposium, the journal members decided to write blogs relating to Citizens United. For better or for worse, I consider myself a political junkie. I’m one of those people who yell at the TV when someone says something I disagree with. However, I decided to temper what I would normally say because I realize that words have consequences, and I certainly don’t want to jeopardize any future employment opportunities. For instance, the other day I heard that certain divisions within the EPA don’t hire attorneys that were members of the Federalist Society. Rumor? I ...

The landmark Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case decided in January this year can been seen as a testament to free speech. The people of the United States have a fundamental belief in the right to free speech. However, it is also a fundamental principle that free speech is to be limited. A quote from Justice Holmes which has often been paraphrased as “Shouting fire in a movie theatre” is the famous example of speech that is limited. (Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47, 52, 39 S.Ct. 247, 249 (1919).) The idea that speech is limited ...

In the wake of outcry over the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizen’s United, I cannot help but wonder what has happened to the faith in ourselves as politically independent-minded voters. Fear of numerous big budget political propaganda funded by large corporations may be legitimate, but in my opinion such Hollywood productions should never be able to skew a voter who is confident in his or her own research and interpretations on the American politics which they live on a daily basis.

If we resign ourselves to the opinion that money wins elections, the democratic process may deteriorate to ...

The Citizens United decision tells us that corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited under the First Amendment. Corporations, we are told, have free speech rights that need to be protected. Whether that concept ought to leave one head-scratching regarding non-human entities and their constitutional rights is something that I am poorly equipped to handle without heavy reliance on sarcasm and reference books, so I will stay out of that part of the argument. That said, it’s time to awaken Mothra because the beastly form of the unlimited corporate funding of electioneering communication has ...

In January, the Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision held that corporate spending on electioneering communications is a form of political speech protected by the First Amendment. The decision overruled two Supreme Court cases and part of the McCain-Feingold Act on the grounds that the act, which prohibited corporations from broadcasting or expressly advocating for a candidate within thirty days of a primary election or sixty days of a general election, is “an outright ban” on corporate speech. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 130 S.Ct. 876, 897 (2010) (5-4 decision) (Stevens, J., dissenting). Those of us interested in ...

In early 2010, the Citizens United case decided that corporations were allowed to exercise their First Amendment right to use their funds to broadcast “electioneering communications” naming federal candidates within thirty days of a primary election and sixty days of a general election. While doing background research on the topic, I became interested in what other people’s viewpoints were on the issue and I came to find that everyone who is anyone has had something to say on the topic. I was unaware how strongly people felt on the matter and how definitive their stances were. The more I ...

“America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the land of the free?” These are the words of the actor Michael Douglas playing the role of President of the United States in The ...

I'm a law student, so I should have known about, heard of, and been paying attention to the Citizens United case and its aftermath well before I was assigned to blog about it. But, I'm a law student, so I won't lie to you: I had no clue what the case was about. Now, in my defense, I was a law student in my first year of law school, and anything not on my to-do list received absolutely no attention. In fact, personal hygiene had little hope of accomplishment, but that's beside the point.

Upon investigation ...

Knowing the aforementioned, it flows that the First Amendment is vital to our political process. It gives everyone a voice, even if no one wants to listen to that voice. That may not sound pleasant, but it really is at the heart of what we as Americans believe. After all, today’s dissenters often end up as leaders of tomorrow.

Now that my point of view on the First Amendment has been sufficiently laid out, we can move on to the subject at hand, the recently decided case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 130 S.Ct. 876 (2010 ...

The recent debate over the decision is Citizens United has caused a split among the opinions of the American public about as big as the divide between the Justices involved in the Supreme Court ruling. In January, the Supreme Court held that electioneering communications funded by corporations could not be prohibited, allowing large corporations to fund and broadcast communications about political candidates running for election.

Many are nervous that the ruling threatens the integrity of the United States’ election process and believe that the larger corporations will use their propaganda to “brain wash” the American people, in essence giving corporations ...

If you are reading this blog right now you are probably either a member of the Nexus Journal of Law & Public Policy at Chapman University, or perhaps, more fortuitously, you are someone who just happened upon this blog amidst the vast and seemingly infinite space that is the blogosphere, and this blog just happened to be touching upon the very subject that, aside from being nearly blogged to death, you just can't get enough of (maybe in hopes of finding a fresh take?). In either case, that means you are probably already somewhat familiar with the underlying U.S ...

There are many different ways of looking at campaign reform debate. One could probably argue each side zealously with equal points allocated to each viewpoint. One thing I think we can all agree on is that most voters do not take actual responsibility into researching their candidates and making educated decisions; and THIS is what needs the most reform.

Consider a nation whose voters take their job as decision makers of the country seriously and do not vote until they have thoroughly researched each candidate and demanded more from their politicians by doing so. Would it make that much of ...

Politics and politicians form the foundation of more arguments, debates, lies, and corruption than any other issue. As a representative of the average voter, I readily admit that I distrust politicians. Ironically, and somewhat ashamedly, I usually learn the most about a political candidate through the propaganda I see on television, whether through political commercials or the rants of newscasters on FOX and MSNBC. It is rare to engage in the debate of a “hot” issue and understand the merits underlying each point of view. While I comprehend the reasoning behind the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United, I ...

When the Supreme Court struck down the limitation on corporate campaign spending in Citizens United, the whole political world became increasingly concerned with the inevitable, unfettered influx of contributions from corporations constantly in search of a way to control their market through government influence. Is this not what was happening already? Perhaps, it would be helpful to require disclosure of what special interest is funding what politician. In fact, we should take a page out of NASCAR’s book and the politicians can wear suits with patches of all their sponsors. This approach of disclosure is at least beginning to ...

It is clear that campaign financial reform has become a topic of wide interest among political parties, organizations and citizens alike, especially after the landmark decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission in January 2010. It is also clear that campaign reform and corporate funding is a controversial issue, as made clear by the 5-4 decision in Citizens United, in which the Supreme Court struck down the provision of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act limiting corporations and organizations from using their general funds to produce or broadcast “electioneering communications” as a violation of the First Amendment.

Although I am ...