“Addressing Conservatives and (Mis)Using Social Sciences in the Debate Over Campaign Finance”

Michael Franz book review essay in Tulsa Law Review:

It is this perspective that invites the commentary and analysis in the three recent books by Robert Post, Timothy Kuhner, and Zephyr Teachout discussed in this essay. Indeed, these are all brilliant books that situate the developments as outlined above in the scholarship, history, and jurisprudence on campaign finance and offer the reader a perspective from which to advocate for reform. In that sense, they all seek and achieve a rightful place in the canon on campaign finance and democratic theory. They were also a joy to read, all written in beautiful prose and by masters of the questions at hand. This review will follow two tracks. First, as discussed in Part I, all three books seek to address—to attack head on, in fact—conservative critiques of the regulation of campaign finance. It is important to consider first how these books seek to recast the debate over regulatory politics in campaign finance as “in response to” as opposed to “in spite of” conservative pressure. Second, as Parts II and III explain, all three books address—directly or indirectly; consciously or unconsciously—the role of evidence in the debate over money in politics and elections. They each do so with skill, but not without challenges. All three use evidence to bolster their argument when relevant; disregard counter-evidence selectively; and ignore entirely the complexity of empiricism as a weapon in the question of campaign finance.

Share this: