No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
For the Defense
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 October 2004
Extract
In some respects, our work in McConnell v. FEC began years before the passage of McCain-Feingold. During 1996–1997 we served on a commission organized by Herbert Alexander to create a political scientists' view of campaign financing. The majority voted 6 to 3 to recommend removing limits on the amounts that parties could contribute to candidates. Our dissent, with Janet Box-Steffensmeier, asserted that such a move would do little to strengthen parties or make elections more competitive, while increasing the potential for donors to corrupt parties (Citizens' Research Foundation 1997). Shortly afterward, we were contacted by lawyers from the FEC looking for expert witnesses in Colorado Republican II to argue on behalf of congressional limits on parties' “coordinated expenditures” (Sorauf and Krasno 1997). A few years later, we were asked by lawyers from the office of Missouri's Attorney General to testify on behalf of that state's regulation of party finances (modeled on FECA) in Missouri Shrink PAC v. Lamb (Krasno and Sorauf 2000). In all of these cases our “testimony” consisted of lengthy reports written for district courts or panels.
- Type
- Symposium
- Information
- Copyright
- © 2004 by the American Political Science Association
References
Beck Paul Allen, et al.
1999.
Brief of Amicus Curiae (submitted for Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC).
Available at http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/briefs/98-963/98-963fo7/98-963fo7.pdf.Google Scholar
Citizens' Research Foundation.
1997.
New Realities, New Thinking.
Los Angeles:
Citizens Research Foundation, University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Corrado Anthony,
Thomas E. Mann, and
Trevor Potter.
2003.
Inside the Campaign Finance Debate: Arguments from the Court Battle over BCRA.
Washington, D.C.:
Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
Gerber Alan S., and
Donald P. Green.
2000.
“The Effects of Canvassing, Telephone Calls and Direct Mail on Voter Turnout: A Field Experiment.”
American Political Science Review
94:
653–63.Google Scholar
Green Donald.
2002.
Rebuttal Report of Donald Green. Prepared for Defendant Intervenors in McConnell v. FEC.Google Scholar
Krasno Jonathan S., and
Kenneth Goldstein.
2002.
“The Facts about Television Advertising and the McCain-Feingold Bill.”
PS: Political Science and Politics
35:
207–212.Google Scholar
Krasno Jonathan S., and
Daniel Seltz.
2000.
Buying Time: Television Advertising in the 1998 Congressional Elections.
New York:
Brennan Center for Justice.Google Scholar
Krasno Jonathan S., and
Frank J. Sorauf.
2000.
Missouri's Limits on Political Parties.
Prepared for the Attorney General of the State of Missouri in Missouri Republican Party et al. v. Lamb.Google Scholar
Krasno Jonathan S., and
Frank J. Sorauf.
2003.
“Evaluating the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act.”
New York University Review of Law & Social Change
28
(1):
121–81.Google Scholar
La Raja Ray, and
Elizabeth Jarvis-Shean.
2001.
Assessing the Impact of a Ban on Soft Money: Party Soft Money Spending in the 2000 Elections.
Berkeley:
Institute of Governmental Studies and Citizens' Research Foundation Policy Brief.Google Scholar
Mann Thomas E., and
Norman J. Ornstein.
2004.
“Separating Myth from Reality in McConnell v. FEC.”
Election Law Journal
3
(2):
291–
98.Google Scholar
Rohde David W.
1991.
Parties and Leaders in the Postreform House.
Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Sorauf Frank J.
1986.
“Caught in a Political Thicket: The Supreme Court and Campaign Finance.” Constitutional Commentary
3
(1):
97–121.Google Scholar
Sorauf Frank J., and
Jonathan S. Krasno.
1997.
Political Party Committees and Coordinated Spending. Prepared for the Federal Election Commission in Colorado Republican II.Google Scholar