Sarah Haan has written this essay for the Northwestern University Law Review Online. Here is the abstract:

In The CEO and the Hydraulics of Campaign Finance Deregulation, Professor Sarah Haan assesses what the Supreme Court’s evolving campaign finance jurisprudence could mean both for business executives–who continue to be among the most active campaign contributors–and for politically-motivated consumers. Professor Haan argues that voters increasingly view their consumer activities, not their campaign contributions, as the most meaningful way to participate in politics. Professor Haan points to the downfall of Mozilla’s Brendan Eich in April, and to a recent wave of politically-motivated boycotts of companies, as evidence that this practice will have a meaningful impact on campaign finance disclosure and, more broadly, on democratic participation.

With some on the Court eager to expand campaign finance disclosure exemptions for “economic reprisal,” Professor Haan concludes that the Court should treat money as speech not only when wealthy individuals donate to political candidates, but also when consumers spend money at the cash register. The politicization of retail markets means that business leaders are unlikely to respond to McCutcheon v. FEC by embracing transparency with their campaign donations, and also suggests that campaign finance deregulation is causing hydraulic effects that the Court has failed to anticipate.