Campaign disclosure in direct democracy

Minnesota Law Review

Volumn 97, Issue 5, 2013, Pages 1700-1729

  Kang, Michael ^a  

^a EMORY UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84878924323     PISSN: 00265535     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (96)

1. Buckley v. Am. Constitutional Law Found., Inc., 525 U.S. 182, 223 (1999)
2. See, e.g., Richard Briffault, Campaign Finance Disclosure 2.0, 9 ELECTION L.J. 273, 273 (2010)
3. Louis D. Brandeis, What Publicity Can Do, HARPER'S WKLY., Dec. 20, 1913, at 10, 10
4. 2 U.S.C. § 434 (2006).
5. 424 U.S. 1 (1976).
6. See generally Benjamin I. Page, The Theory of Political Ambiguity, 70 AM. POL. SCI. REV. 742 (1976);
7. Kenneth A. Shepsle, The Strategy of Ambiguity: Uncertainty and Electoral Competition, 66 AM. POL. SCI. REV. 555 (1972).
8. See Valeo, 424 U.S. at 64-68
9. See Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S. Ct. 876, 914 (2010)
10. Kathleen M. Sullivan, Against Campaign Finance Reform, 1998 UTAH L. REV. 311, 326.
11. see also David Schultz, Disclosure is Not Enough: Empirical Lessons from State Experiences, 4 ELECTION L.J. 349 (2005)
12. See BRADLEY A. SMITH, UNFREE SPEECH 82 (2001);
13. See also LARRY J. SABATO & GLENN R. SIMPSON, DIRTY LITTLE SECRETS: THE PERSISTENCE OF CORRUPTION IN AMERICAN POLITICS 328-35 (1996);
14. Bradley A. Smith, A Moderate, Modern Campaign Finance Reform Agenda, 12 NEXUS 3, 15 (2007).
15. 130 S. Ct. 876 (2010).
16. See Michael S. Kang, The Year of the Super-PAC, 81 GEO. WASH. L. REV. (forthcoming 2013).
17. Citizens United, 130 S. Ct. at 914-16.
18. See generally Michael S. Kang, The End of Campaign Finance Law, 98 VA. L. REV. 1 (2012)
19. See Thomas E. Mann, Commentary, Campaign Finance in the Wake of Citizens United, 44 J. MARSHALL L. REV. 583, 590 (2011)
20. See, e.g., Fred Hiatt, A GOP Bait-and-switch on Disclosure, WASH. POST, June 18, 2012, at A15;
21. See also Disclosure Vote Leaves Trail of Broken Republican Vows, BLOOMBERG VIEW (July 17, 2012), http://www.bloomberg .com/news/2012-07-17/ disclose-vote-leaves-trail-of-broken-republican-vows.html
22. See, e.g., Michael S. Kang, From Broadcasting to Narrowcasting: The Emerging Challenge for Campaign Finance Law, 73 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 1070, 1075-84 (2005)
23. William McGeveran, Mrs. McIntyre's Check-book: Privacy Costs of Political Contribution Disclosure, 6 U. PA. J. CONST. L. 1, 18-20 (2003)
24. See generally SASHA ISSENBERG, THE VICTORY LAB: THE SECRET SCIENCE OF WINNING CAMPAIGNS (2012)
25. William McGeveran, Mrs. McIntyre's Persona: Bringing Privacy Theory to Election Law, 19 WM. & MARY BILL RTS. J. 859, 863 (2011).
26. CAL. SEC'Y OF STATE, VOTER INFORMATION GUIDE, TEXT OF PROPOSED LAWS, PROPOSITION 8 (2008), available at http://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2008/general/text- proposed-laws/text-of-proposed-laws.pdf#prop8
27. David Lourie, Note, Rethinking Donor Disclosure After the Proposition 8 Campaign, 83 S. CAL. L. REV. 133, 133-35 (2009).
28. ProtectMarriage.com v. Bowen, 599 F. Supp. 2d 1197, 1200-04 (E.D. Cal. 2009).
29. 357 U.S. 449, 462-63 (1958).
30. 459 U.S. 87, 91-98 (1982).
31. Bowen, 599 F. Supp. 2d at 1216-17.
32. 130 S. Ct. 705, 713 (2010)
33. Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S. Ct. 876, 981 (2010) (Thomas, J., con-curring in part and dissenting in part).
34. 130 S. Ct. 2811, 2821 (2010).
35. See Washington Public Records Act, WASH. REV. CODE § 42.56.070(1) (2006).
36. Reed, 130 S. Ct. at 2816.
37. See Nathaniel Persily & Jennifer S. Rosenberg, Defacing Democracy?: The Changing Nature and Rising Importance of As-Applied Challenges in the Supreme Court's Recent Election Law Decisions, 93 MINN. L. REV. 1644, 1644-46 (2009)
38. See Reed, 130 S. Ct. at 2829 (Stevens, J., concurring);
39. See, e.g., Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S. Ct. 876, 980-81 (2010)
40. Reed, 130 S. Ct. at 2821
41. See Todd Donovan & Shaun Bowler, An Overview of Direct Democracy in the American States, in CITIZENS AS LEGISLATORS 1, 2 (Shaun Bowler et al. eds., 1998)
42. First Nat'l Bank of Bos. v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765, 790 (1978)
43. See Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 26 (1976).
44. See Citizens Against Rent Control/Coal. for Fair Hous. v. City of Berkeley, 454 U.S. 290, 296 (1981).
45. See Bellotti, 435 U.S. at 795.
46. Compare Austin v. Mich. Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652, 660 (1990)
47. Bellotti, 435 U.S. at 792 n.32.
48. See Cal. Pro-Life Council, Inc. v. Getman, 328 F.3d 1088, 1105 n.23 (9th Cir. 2003)
49. See Michael S. Kang, Democratizing Direct Democracy: Restoring Voter Competence Through Heuristic Cues and "Disclosure Plus", 50 UCLA L. REV. 1141, 1151 (2003).
50. JOHN H. ALDRICH, WHY PARTIES? THE ORIGIN AND TRANSFORMATION OF POLITICAL PARTIES IN AMERICA 166 (1995)
51. See, e.g., Jeffrey A. Karp, The Influence of Elite Endorsements in Initi-ative Campaigns, in CITIZENS AS LEGISLATORS: DIRECT DEMOCRACY IN THE UNITED STATES 149, 157 (Shaun Bowler et al. eds., 1998);
52. David M. Paul & Clyde Brown, The Dynamics of Elite Endorsements in Professional Sports Fa-cility Referendums, 6 ST. POL. & POL'Y Q. 272, 282-83 (2006);
53. Lee Sigelman, Voting in Gubernatorial Succession Referenda: The Incumbency Cue, 51 J. POL. 869, 876 (1989).
54. See Christopher S. Elmendorf & David Schleicher, Informing Consent: Voter Ignorance, Political Parties, and Election Law, 2013 U. ILL. L. REV.
55. See, e.g., Arthur Miller, Christopher Wlezien & Anne Hildreth, A Refer-ence Group Theory of Partisan Coalitions, 53 J. POL. 1134, 1147 (1991).
56. Cal. Pro-Life Council, Inc. v. Getman, 328 F.3d 1088, 1105 n.23 (9th Cir. 2003).
57. Arthur Lupia, Shortcuts Versus Encyclopedias: Information and Vot-ing Behavior in California Insurance Reform Elections, 88 AM. POL. SCI. REV. 63 (1994).
58. Dick M. Carpenter II, Mandatory Disclosure for Ballot-Initiative Campaigns, 13 INDEP. REV. 567, 573 (2009).
59. Cal. Pro-Life Council, Inc. v. Getman, 328 F.3d 1088, 1106 n.25 (9th Cir. 2003).
60. See generally Lloyd Hitoshi Mayer, Disclosures About Disclosure, 44 IND. L. REV. 255, 255-56 (2010)
61. See, e.g., Cheryl Boudreau, Closing the Gap: When Do Cues Eliminate Differences Between Sophisticated and Unsophisticated Citizens?, 71 J. POL. 964, 974-75 (2009).
62. See, e.g., Pamela M. Homer & Lynn R. Kahle, Source Expertise, Time of Source Identification, and Involvement in Persuasion: An Elaborative Processing Perspective, 19 J. ADVERTISING 30, 37 (1990);
63. Brian Sternthal et al., The Persuasive Effect of Source Credibility: A Situational Analysis, 42 PUB. OPINION Q. 285, 288-89 (1978);
64. Brian Sternthal et al., The Persuasive Effect of Source Credibility: Tests of Cognitive Response, 4 J. CONSUMER RES. 252, 259 (1978);
65. Charles D. Ward & Elliott McGinnies, Persuasive Effects of Early and Late Mention of Credible and Noncredible Sources, 86 J. PSYCHOL. 17, 17 (1974).
66. See, e.g., James H. Kuklinski & Norman L. Hurley, On Hearing and Interpreting Political Messages: A Cautionary Tale of Citizen Cue-Taking, 56 J. POL. 729, 732 (1994).
67. See Craig M. Burnett, Elizabeth Garrett, & Mathew D. McCubbins, The Dilemma of Direct Democracy, 9 ELECTION L.J. 305, 317 (2010).
68. See, e.g., Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S. Ct. 876, 916 (2010)
69. Richard L. Hasen, Chill Out, A Qualified Defense of Disclosure Laws, 27 J.L. & POL. 557, 559 (2012).
70. Brief for Direct Democracy Scholars as Amici Curiae Supporting Re-spondents at 12, Doe v. Reed, 130 S. Ct. 2811 (2010)
71. Doe v. Reed, 823 F. Supp. 2d 1195, 1212 (W.D. Wash. 2011)
72. see also Bruce Cain, Shade from the Glare: The Case for Semi-Disclosure, CATO UNBOUND, Nov. 8, 2010, available at http://www.cato-unbound.org/2010/11/08/ bruce-cain/shade-from-the-glare-the-case-for-semi-disclosure/.
73. See generally Eugene Volokh, Tort Law vs. Privacy (undated) (un-published draft manuscript), available at http://www.law.yale.edu/documents/pdf/ Intellectual-Life/LTW-Volokh.pdf
74. See, e.g., Eugene Volokh, Private Employees' Speech and Political Activity: Statutory Protection Against Employer Retaliation, 16 TEX. REV. L. & POL. 295 (2012)
75. OHIO REV. CODE ANN. § 731.40 (West 2011);
76. WASH. REV. CODE ANN. § 42.17A.495(2) (West 2012)
77. See, e.g., LA. REV. STAT. ANN. §§ 18:1461.1(A)(2), 1483, 1505.2 (2011) (enacted 1997);
78. MASS. GEN. LAWS ANN. ch. 56, § 33 (West 2012) (enacted 1994);
79. OR. REV. STAT. ANN. §§ 260.665(1)-(2) (West 2012) (enacted 1971).
80. But see Fowler v. Neb. Accounta-bility & Disclosure Comm'n, 330 N.W.2d 136 (Neb. 1983)
81. See Also Jacob Gardener, Sunlight Without Sunburns: Balanc-ing Public Access and Privacy in Ballot Measure Disclosure Laws, 18 B.U. J. SCI. & TECH. L. 262 (2012)
82. See Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 30 (1976).
83. Doe v. Reed, 130 S. Ct. 2811, 2837 (2010) (Scalia, J., concurring).
84. See Brown v. Socialist Workers '74 Campaign Comm., 459 U.S. 87, 99-102 (1982)
85. NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449, 462-63 (1958)
86. See Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 30 (1976)
87. 514 U.S. 334 (1995).
88. See Ctr. for Individual Freedom v. Madigan, 697 F.3d 464, 482 (7th Cir. 2012)
89. McIntyre, 514 U.S. at 348-49.
90. See ACLF, 525 U.S. at 202-03
91. McIntyre, 514 U.S. at 354-56
92. see also Anthony Johnstone, A Madisonian Case for Disclosure, 19 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 413, 456-57 (2012)
93. 514 U.S. at 355.
94. 525 U.S. at 199
95. See also Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc'y of N.Y., Inc. v. Vill. of Stratton, 536 U.S. 150 (2002)
96. See James Bennet, The New Price of American Politics, ATLANTIC MONTHLY, Oct. 2012, at 66, 68