Nexus: Chapman's Journal of Law and Public Policy

WELCOME!

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 ...

AN EYE TOWARDS 2012

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 ...

CITIZENS UNITED AND A LOOK BACK AT THE 2010 MIDTERM ELECTION

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 ...

THE AFTERMATH: STATES UNITED TOWARD CHANGE

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 ...

“DEVASTATING TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST,” OR DEVASTATING TO THE DEMOCRATIC 2012 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN: A LOOK PRESIDENT OBAMA AND THE EFFECT OF CITIZENS U

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 ...

BEHIND THE SCENES OF CITIZENS UNITED

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 ...

HOW ‘CITIZENS UNITED’ WAS WON: A JOURNEY BACK IN TIME TO THE CREATION OF CORPORATE PERSONHOOD

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 ...

WAS IT ALWAYS LIKE THIS?

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 ...

THE VICIOUS TURN OF THE 2010 CAMPAIGN…IS CITIZENS UNITED TO BLAME?

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 ...

TAXES ARE AN AMAZING THING: USING THE TAXING POWER TO LIMIT CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS

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 ...

CITIZENS UNITED: JUSTICE STEVENS ON CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL

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 ...

THE NEW NORMAL

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 ...

CITIZENS UNITED & CORPORATE PERSONHOOD

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 ...

HAVE A LITTLE FAITH

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 ...

UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF THE MIDTERM ELECTIONS

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 ...

A ONE TERM PRESIDENT?

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 ...

AFTERTHOUGHTS: THE 2010 ELECTION & THE REPUBLICAN “SHELLACKING”

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 ...

MISSED OPPORTUNITIES

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 ...

CITIZENS UNITED: TO DISCLOSE OR NOT TO DISCLOSE?

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 ...

CITIZENS UNITED OR NOT… WHY BOTHER?

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 ...

CITIZENS UNITED: GROUNDBREAKING LEGAL DECISION OR SIMPLY REINFORCING MORE OF THE SAME?

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 ...

FREE SPEECH VS. DEMOCRACY

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 ...

CITIZENS UNITED: THE REAL CONCERN

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 ...

REFLECTION ON THE NEXUS SYMPOSIUM ON CITIZENS UNITED

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 ...

MONEY TALKS

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 ...

THE FIRST AMENDMENT: FREEDOM OF MONEY

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 ...

NEXUS JOURNAL'S SYMPOSIUM HIGHLIGHTS: KEYNOTE SPEAKERS AND DISTINCT PANELISTS

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 ...

ME VS. MYSELF

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: THE RIGHT DECISION

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 ...

CITIZENS UNITED AND UNLIMITED CORPORATE SPENDING ON POLITICAL ATTACK ADS: SO WHAT?

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 ...

THE SHADOWY SPENDING SPREE

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 ...

CORPORATE SPENDING: A GATEWAY TO BROADER ISSUES

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 ...

WORDS HAVE CONSEQUENCES

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 ...

IS THE SUPREME COURT GOING IN THE WRONG DIRECTION WITH CITIZENS UNITED?

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 ...

HAVE A LITTLE FAITH

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 ...

THE NATURE OF THE BEAST

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 ...

IS "SHAREHOLDER DEMOCRACY" REALLY ENOUGH?

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 ...

CITIZEN’S UNITED: ELECTORAL APOCALYPSE OR FREEDOM?

“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 ...

CITIZENS UNITED: EXPANDING OUR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS? I DON’T SEE IT.

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 ...

CITIZENS UNITED: WILL AMERICANS SINK OR SWIM?

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 ...

STARING STARE DECISIS IN THE FACE: AUSTIN AS AN ABERRATION

This blog attempts to explain the context within which Citizens United v. FEC was decided, starting with broad concepts of law and quickly narrowing them to the case at hand.

The text of the First Amendment is straight forward: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or ...

MIXED VIEWS OF THE CITIZENS UNITED DECISION

Millions of dollars are poured into campaigns each election every year. Members of Congress look to wealthy individuals and businesses to fund their campaigns. For years it has been debated whether or not the government should limit contributions to campaigns or campaign spending to prevent corruption of politicians. In 2010 ...

CORPORATE SPEECH – BRING IT ON

On January 27, 2010, the cameras caught Justice Samuel Alito’s apparent utterance of the phrase “not true,” in response to allegations that the Court had overturned nearly 100 years of precedent. The public exchange between President Barack Obama and Justice Alito during the President’s State of the Union ...