The Experts below are selected from a list of 321 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Richard L. Hasen - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Essay: Is 'Dependence Corruption' Distinct from a Political Equality Argument for Campaign Finance Laws? A Reply to Professor Lessig
2013Co-Authors: Richard L. HasenAbstract:I greatly appreciate Professor Lawrence Lessig’s interest in and passion about limiting the corrosive role of money in American politics. Lessig is an academic rock star, a great online and social media presence who draws large crowds for his multimedia presentations wherever he goes to talk about reforming our campaign finance system. He has done more to educate the general public about these issues than anyone else (aside from possibly Stephen Colbert), certainly more than those of us, like me, who have spent our entire careers writing about campaign finance issues.And yet I have unease about a central premise of Lessig’s argument: that “dependence corruption,” the government interest he advances to support the constitutionality of his proposed campaign finance reforms, is analytically distinct from an interest in promoting Political Equality. Lessig’s argument is crucial to the constitutionality of his program before the current Supreme Court, which has rejected Political Equality as a permissible interest to support campaign finance regulation. I recently discussed my concerns about his dependence corruption argument in a Harvard Law Review book review of Lessig’s new book, Republic, Lost, and Lessig has responded with a defense in a Harvard Law Review Online Reply and in his public presentations.My continuing concern is not primarily with Lessig’s prediction that a current majority of the Supreme Court could well accept the dependence corruption rationale to justify new restrictions, such as contribution limits to super PACs — although I do think he is wrong in that prediction and that in his role as campaign finance reform zealot he gives false hope to those who think the Court would soon effectively overturn Citizens United v. FEC using his analysis. Rather, Lessig’s dependence corruption argument encourages fuzzy thinking about the Political Equality rationale at a time when we need clear thinking about, and defenses of, Political Equality arguments. There could well be a time within the next decade when a more liberal Supreme Court majority may consider overturning recent precedent and allowing more regulation. By being more precise about what is at stake with such regulation, and the potential costs to free expression, supporters of reasonable campaign finance regulation will be better positioned to defend a new set of laws. In the end, the debate over dependence corruption helps elucidate the best and worst types of Political Equality arguments to advance to a future Supreme Court and American public.
-
Is “Dependence Corruption” Distinct from a Political Equality Argument for Campaign Finance Laws? A Reply to Professor Lessig
Election Law Journal: Rules Politics and Policy, 2013Co-Authors: Richard L. HasenAbstract:Abstract This essay responds to Professor Lawrence Lessig's argument that “dependence corruption,” the government interest he advances to support the constitutionality of his proposed campaign finance reforms, is analytically distinct from an interest in promoting Political Equality. It argues that Lessig's dependence corruption argument encourages fuzzy thinking about the Political Equality rationale. By being more precise about what is at stake with campaign finance regulation, and the potential costs to free expression, supporters of reasonable regulation will be better positioned to defend a new set of laws. In the end, the debate over dependence corruption helps elucidate the best and worst types of Political Equality arguments to advance to a future Supreme Court and American public.
-
Citizens United and the Orphaned Antidistortion Rationale
2011Co-Authors: Richard L. HasenAbstract:This brief Essay, written for a symposium in the Georgia State Law Review, considers liberals’ abandonment in the Citizens United case of the “antidistortion” interest for corporate campaign spending limits. Soon after his retirement, Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens gave an interview to the CBS television program 60 Minutes in which he defended corporate spending limits on antidistortion grounds. Reacting to the Stevens interview, the president of Citizens United lauded the Court’s decision on grounds that it would level the playing field. How strange that both the Citizens United prime dissenter and plaintiff described the decision in terms of antidistortion/Political Equality effects. The irony in this debate is that Mr. Bossie’s group argued before the Supreme Court that the First Amendment barred taking Political Equality concerns into account in fashioning campaign finance rules, and Justice Stevens’ dissent did its best to avoid acknowledging that it was defending corporate spending limits, in part, on Political Equality grounds. Justice Stevens’ failure to expressly defend corporate spending limits on Political Equality grounds came after the government had abandoned the rationale in the Supreme Court.This Essay argues that the antidistortion argument did not deserve to be orphaned, and remains a key animating principle in thinking about the desirability of campaign finance laws. Part I explains how the antidistortion argument became an orphan in Citizens United, laying the blame with the Solicitor General’s office and with Justice Stevens muddled Citizens United dissent. Part II explains the cost of this orphaning for the future of campaign finance and related laws: keeping the Political Equality rationale in the closet will make it harder to get legislative and judicial change in the campaign finance arena going forward, and it prevents a full and honest debate about the desirability and cost of campaign finance laws justified on Political Equality grounds.
-
Political Equality the internet and campaign finance regulation
2008Co-Authors: Richard L. HasenAbstract:Despite signs from the 2004 presidential election contest pointing to a larger role for "big money" in the 2008 season, the indicia so far suggest that there is much for egalitarians to cheer. Egalitarians believe that unequal distribution of wealth should play less of a role in determining presidential election outcomes and/or the policies of the president once elected. At this point in the 2008 election season, it appears that big money is beginning to matter less, rather than more, thanks in large part to the enhanced role of the Internet in campaigning and fundraising, and especially thanks to the viability of campaigns funded substantially by small donors. Such a shift is especially important given that the United States Supreme Court has grown increasingly hostile to campaign finance regulation. The promise of small donors, rather than regulation, stands the best chance of countering the role of big money in future presidential elections.
-
The Supreme Court and Election Law: Judging Equality from Baker v. Carr to Bush v. Gore
2003Co-Authors: Richard L. HasenAbstract:PrefaceAcknowledgments Introduction: Mighty Platonic Guardians 1 The Supreme Court of Political Equality 2 Judicial Unmanageability and Political Equality 3 Protecting the Core of Political Equality 4 Deferring to Political Branches on Contested Equality Claims 5 Equality, Not Structure Conclusion: Political Equality and a Minimalist Court Appendix 1: Twentieth-Century Election Law Cases Decided by the Supreme Court in a Written Opinion Appendix 2: Justice Goldberg's Proposed Dissent to a Per Curiam Summary Af?rmance in Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections NotesIndex About the Author
Stuart White - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Trade Unions and Political Equality
Philosophical Foundations of Labour Law, 2018Co-Authors: Martin O’neill, Stuart WhiteAbstract:In recent years democratic politics has come under threat in a number of Euro-Atlantic countries, as the wealthy have increasingly been able to influence Political outcomes. This ‘oligarchic shift’ has led a number of theorists to consider how democratic structures might be redesigned to insulate them from the influence of the wealthy. As an alternative strategy, we suggest attend to the ‘associational background’ against which democratic politics take place, and in particular we argue that healthy and vibrant trade unions can play an important role in creating conditions for Political Equality. We examine a number of ways in which unions can play this role in creating the associational conditions for greater Political Equality, including through encouraging Political participation; through acting as conduits for relevant information; by helping to shape the habits and attitudes of democratic citizens; by cementing partisan Political alliances; and by providing alternative routes for elite Political recruitment. Given these benefits, we argue that democratic states have reason to take a ‘promotive stance’ towards trade unions.
-
Trade Unions and Political Equality
2018Co-Authors: Martin O'neill, Stuart WhiteAbstract:The book is an interdisciplinary investigation by lawyers and philosophers into the philosophical ideas, concepts, and principles that provide the foundation for the field of labour law or employment law. The book addresses doubts that have been expressed about whether a worker-protective labour law is needed at all, what should be regarded as the proper scope of the field in the light of developments such as the integration of work and home life by means of technology, the globalisation of the economy, and the precarious kinds of work that thrive in the gig economy. Paying particular attention to Political philosophy and theories of justice, the contributions focus on four themes: I. Freedom, dignity, and human rights; II. Distributive justice and exploitation; III. Workplace democracy and self-determination; IV Social inclusion.
Becky Bickford - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Research Guides: PS 4223: Dynamics of American Democracy: Citing your sources
2020Co-Authors: Becky BickfordAbstract:Students will be exposed to the main models of democracy, and focus on three elements of a democratic society, namely the norms of citizenship, Political Equality and democratic institutions.
-
Research Guides: PS 4223: Dynamics of American Democracy: Online Resources and Databases
2020Co-Authors: Becky BickfordAbstract:Students will be exposed to the main models of democracy, and focus on three elements of a democratic society, namely the norms of citizenship, Political Equality and democratic institutions.
Alberto Alemanno - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
leveling the eu participatory playing field a legal and policy analysis of the commission s public consultations in light of the principle of Political Equality
2020Co-Authors: Alberto AlemannoAbstract:The EU Commission has a long tradition of consulting interested parties when formulating its policies. While the rationale, format and legal basis relied upon by the Commission when holding public consultations have changed over time, its systemic inability to make those consultations equally accessible to all affected parties has remained constant. This article, by engaging with theoretically informed empirical studies, discusses the extent to which such a consultation practice conflicts with the principle of Political Equality, as enshrined in Article 9 TEU. Given the Commission’s unrestrained discretion regarding who, how and when to consult and the absence of corresponding participatory rights, it argues that the EU can no longer presume that all stakeholders — especially citizens and civil society groups — enjoy equal access to EU institutions, as well as equal information, and voice. Rather, under a proposed substantive reading of the principle of Political Equality, it contends that EU institutions are procedurally required to ensure that everyone will effectively be given equal opportunities of access to the policy process. To attain this objective, it puts forward a set of recommendations aimed at re-designing the actual legal and policy framework for consultations, on the one hand, and building an enabling participatory environment surrounding them, on the other hand. Ultimately, only a series of structural, power-shifting reforms — some of which are proposed in this article — may enable participation to become an autonomous form of legitimation of the Union.
-
Leveling the EU Participatory Playing Field: A Legal and Policy Analysis of the Commission’s Public Consultations in Light of the Principle of Political Equality
SSRN Electronic Journal, 2020Co-Authors: Alberto AlemannoAbstract:The EU Commission has a long tradition of consulting interested parties when formulating its policies. While the rationale, format and legal basis relied upon by the Commission when holding public consultations have changed over time, its systemic inability to make those consultations equally accessible to all affected parties has remained constant. This article, by engaging with theoretically informed empirical studies, discusses the extent to which such a consultation practice conflicts with the principle of Political Equality, as enshrined in Article 9 TEU. Given the Commission’s unrestrained discretion regarding who, how and when to consult and the absence of corresponding participatory rights, it argues that the EU can no longer presume that all stakeholders — especially citizens and civil society groups — enjoy equal access to EU institutions, as well as equal information, and voice. Rather, under a proposed substantive reading of the principle of Political Equality, it contends that EU institutions are procedurally required to ensure that everyone will effectively be given equal opportunities of access to the policy process. To attain this objective, it puts forward a set of recommendations aimed at re-designing the actual legal and policy framework for consultations, on the one hand, and building an enabling participatory environment surrounding them, on the other hand. Ultimately, only a series of structural, power-shifting reforms — some of which are proposed in this article — may enable participation to become an autonomous form of legitimation of the Union.
Yutang Jin - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Tongdong Bai: Against Political Equality: The Confucian Case
Res Publica, 2021Co-Authors: Yutang JinAbstract:Tongdong Bai’s ambitious book, Against Political Equality: The Confucian Case , aims to not only draw on classic Confucianism to shed light on contemporary issues but also make Confucianism universally applicable to the human conditions widely shared around the globe. Bai’s Confucian Political theory carries distinctive merits in both its innovative approach and comprehensive scope, but there are still ambiguities of which he owes us more explanation. In this review article, I offer a brief summary of Bai’s book and critically engage with three aspects of his account: (1) the acceptability of the Confucian hybrid regime, (2) its relationship with Confucian compassion, and (3) hierarchical international order. First, Bai’s pursuit of service to the people as an end result makes it difficult to apply to societies that champion Political Equality and participation. Second, neither the supremacy of the Confucian value of compassion nor the hybrid regime’s ability to carry it through is self-evidently clear. Third, the Confucian idea of unity among all-under-heaven undermines Bai’s advocacy of patriotic allegiance to a particular state and hierarchical inter-state order where the multiplicity of states, albeit unequal, is preserved.
-
Tongdong Bai: Against Political Equality: The Confucian Case: Princeton University Press, Princeton NJ, 2019, 315 pp
Res Publica, 2021Co-Authors: Yutang JinAbstract:Tongdong Bai’s ambitious book, Against Political Equality: The Confucian Case, aims to not only draw on classic Confucianism to shed light on contemporary issues but also make Confucianism universally applicable to the human conditions widely shared around the globe. Bai’s Confucian Political theory carries distinctive merits in both its innovative approach and comprehensive scope, but there are still ambiguities of which he owes us more explanation. In this review article, I offer a brief summary of Bai’s book and critically engage with three aspects of his account: (1) the acceptability of the Confucian hybrid regime, (2) its relationship with Confucian compassion, and (3) hierarchical international order. First, Bai’s pursuit of service to the people as an end result makes it difficult to apply to societies that champion Political Equality and participation. Second, neither the supremacy of the Confucian value of compassion nor the hybrid regime’s ability to carry it through is self-evidently clear. Third, the Confucian idea of unity among all-under-heaven undermines Bai’s advocacy of patriotic allegiance to a particular state and hierarchical inter-state order where the multiplicity of states, albeit unequal, is preserved.
