Monthly Archives: March 2014

“Through a Glass, Darkly: The Rhetoric and Reality of Campaign Finance Disclosure”

Jennifer Heerwig and Kate Shaw have posted this draft on SSRN (forthcoming, Georgetown Law Journal).  Here is the abstract:

In Citizens United v. FEC, the Supreme Court swept away long-standing limits on corporate spending in federal elections, but it also strongly affirmed the constitutionality of robust disclosure and disclaimer requirements. In the wake of that decision, many proponents of campaign finance regulation have turned their attention to disclosure as the best remaining mechanism by which to regulate money in elections. At the same time, opponents of campaign finance regulation — including the legal team behind Citizens United — have trained their sights on disclosure, filing new challenges to existing disclosure requirements in a number of state or federal courts, although so far with only limited success.

Relying on the Longitudinal Elite Contributor Database (LECD) — an original database developed by one of the authors to track the population of unique individual campaign contributors from 1980 through 2008 — this essay tests the Supreme Court’s rhetoric about disclosure, and some of the premises of our current policy debates about money in politics, against the realities of the FEC’s existing disclosure regime. In particular, we find that compliance with existing disclosure regulations is inconsistent and that the current regime fails to identify the most potentially influential players in the campaign finance system. In so doing, the current system fails to provide basic facts about how candidates (and committees) finance their campaigns. We suggest that much of what the Court and reformers assume about disclosure is wrong — that their views are premised on an effective and well-functioning disclosure regime that in fact bears scant resemblance to the system of disclosure maintained by the FEC. Correcting these misunderstandings will be critical to crafting better reform proposals. And the stakes could not be higher: disclosure may well be the only constitutionally viable and politically feasible method of regulating money in elections in a post-Citizens United world.

I look forward to reading this!

Share this:

$1000 Contribution to Prop 8 by Mozilla CEO Leads to OK Cupid Protest: Harassment?

Here‘s a description of the controversy.

Is this harassment or the free speech exercise of OKCupid?


See my piece, Chill Out: A Qualified Defense of Campaign Finance Disclosure Laws in the Internet Age, 27 Journal of Law and Politics 557 (2012) and

Elian Dashev, Economic Boycotts as Harassment: The Threat to First Amendment Protected Speech in the Aftermath of Doe v. Reed

Share this:

“Leland Yee’s campaign debt at root of criminal behavior, authorities allege”

Sac Bee:

In more than a decade of campaigns for the California Legislature, San Francisco mayor and secretary of state, state Sen. Leland Yee raised in excess of $5 million. Yet it was a campaign debt only a fraction of that amount that federal officials allege pulled the veteran politician into a sprawling sting operation.

The 137-page FBI affidavit against Yee and more than 20 other defendants says the San Francisco Democrat’s focus on retiring a $70,000 campaign debt from his unsuccessful 2011 mayor’s race and raising money for his 2014 candidacy for secretary of state led him to accept bribes in return for official favors and arrange overseas weapons deals.

Share this: