No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Introduction—Political Scientists in McConnell v. FEC
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 October 2004
Extract
The Supreme Court's sweeping decision in December, 2003, in McConnell v. FEC was as unexpected as it was dramatic. For months the conventional wisdom had been that the Court was certain to overturn one and possibly both of the main parts of the McCain-Feingold law, or otherwise substantially narrow the statue. Instead, the justices, by a slim 5-4 majority, did just the opposite; not only upholding the law but doing so in terms that virtually echoed the defendants' arguments. Proponents were stunned and thrilled. Opponents were appalled; Justice Scalia called it the “opening act of a national tragedy.” Both sides agreed, however, that the decision in McConnell stands as one of the most important campaign finance and First Amendment precedents in several decades.
- Type
- Symposium
- Information
- Copyright
- © 2004 by the American Political Science Association
References
Corrado Anthony,
Thomas E. Mann, and
Trevor Potter, eds.
2003.
Inside the Campaign Finance Debate: Arguments from the Court Battle over BCRA.
Washington, D.C.:
Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
Mann Thomas E.
2003.
“Linking Knowledge and Action: Political Science and Campaign Finance Reform.”
Perspectives on Politics
1
(1):
69–83.Google Scholar
Ornstein Norman J.,
Thomas E. Mann,
Paul Taylor,
Michael J. Malbin, and
Anthony Corrado.
1997.
“5 Ideas for Practical Campaign Reform.”
In Campaign Finance Reform: A Sourcebook,
eds. Anthony Corrado,
Thomas E. Mann,
Daniel Ortiz,
Trevor Potter, and
Frank Sorauf.
Washington, D.C.:
Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
Putnam Robert D.
2003.
“The Public Role of Political Science.”
Perspectives on Politics
1
(2):
249–255.Google Scholar
Smith Bradley A.
2001.
Unfree Speech: The Folly of Campaign Finance Reform.
Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.Google Scholar