Explore the vast range of titles available.

This study tests the empirical assumptions about American public opinion found in the Supreme Court's opinions concerning campaign finance reform. The area of campaign finance is a unique one in First Amendment law because the Court has allowed the mere appearance of a problem (in this case, \"corruption\") to justify the curtailment of recognized First Amendment rights of speech and association. Since Buckley v. Valeo, defendants in campaign finance cases have proffered various types of evidence to support the notion that the public perceives a great deal of corruption produced by the campaign finance system. Most recently, in McConnell v. FEC, in which the Court upheld the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, both the Department of Justice and the plaintiffs conducted and submitted into evidence public opinion polls measuring the public's perception of corruption. This article examines the data presented in that case, but also examines forty years of survey data of public attitudes toward corruption in government. We argue that trends in public perception of corruption may have little to do with the campaign finance system. The share of the population describing government as corrupt went down even as soft money contributions skyrocketed. Moreover, the survey data suggest that an individual's perception of corruption derives to some extent from that person's (1) position in society (race, income, education level); (2) opinion of the incumbent President and performance of the economy over the previous year; (3) attitudes concerning taxation and \"big government\"; and (4) propensity to trust other people, in general. Although we conclude that, indeed, a large majority of Americans believe that the campaign finance system contributes to corruption in government, the data do not suggest that campaign finance reform will have an effect on these attitudes.

As a result of disparities in resources, a small, wealthy, and homogenous donor class makes large contributions that fund the bulk of American politics. Even in the aftermath of recent campaign reforms, the donor class effectively determines which candidates possess the resources to run viable campaigns. This reality undermines the democratic value of widespread participation. Instead of preventing \"corruption\" or equalizing funds between candidates, the primary goal of campaign reform should be to reduce the impact of wealth disparities and empower more citizens to participate in the funding of campaigns. On average, candidates should receive a larger percentage of their funds from a greater number of people in smaller contribution amounts. Reforms such as establishing matching funds and providing tax credits for smaller contributions, combined with emerging technology, would enable more Americans to make contributions and would enhance their voices in our democracy.

The Supreme Court's recent decision in McConnell v. Federal Election Commission marks the culmination of an effort begun in 2000 to shift the court's campaign finance jurisprudence in an important, though potentially dangerous, direction. Hasen examines its effects.

Bauer analyzes the component parts of \"judicial deference\" as set out in McConnell v. Federal Election Commission. He assesses their interrelationship and persuasiveness.

Last week, Michael Jordan, the biggest name in the sports world, endorsed Mr. Bradley in a 30-second television advertisement. It was the first time Mr. Jordan has endorsed any candidate. Vice President Al Gore, who began the campaign season as shoo-in, was surprised by Mr. Bradley's early strength among voters. With the polls showing him sinking, he changed tactics and started attacking Mr. Bradley. Mr. Gore posted an easy victory in the Iowa caucuses, and defeated Mr. Bradley 52 percent to 48 percent in the New Hampshire primary. Mr. Gore has capitalized on that momentum and holds double-digit leads in several states, including delegate-rich California.

John McCain stresses his character, and his passion for campaign finance reform is supposed to serve as a token of good character. McCain wants to reform campaigns by expanding government control of political speech, imposing additional regulations on citizens' contributions and candidates' and independent groups' expenditures. In 1967-68, when Michigan's Gov. George Romney was seeking the Republican presidential nomination, reporters joked that they installed on their typewriters special keys so that with a single stroke they could type the phrase \"Romney later explained. . . .\" A [George W.] Bush aide later explained that although Bush has raised more money than McCain has from lobbyists, McCain has raised more \"as a percentage of the total amount of money he (McCain) has raised.\" Another day in the Bush campaign, another day wasted. Bush's current objection to McCain's campaign finance position - that McCain is a hypocrite for playing under existing rules while advocating new rules - is too puerile to merit confuting. But last week, Bush at least took note of McCain2000.com, McCain's Web page, which asserted: \"John McCain has always consistently opposed public funding of campaigns and has never proposed such a plan.\"

\"We will persevere,\" promised Arizona Republican John McCain, co- author of the Senate's reform bill with Wisconsin Democrat Russ Feingold. One version of their bill, banning unlimited \"soft money\" donations to national parties, earned 53 votes; another version that was broader earned 52. Feingold and fellow Wisconsin Democrat Herb Kohl voted in favor both times. One version of McCain-Feingold -- essentially last year's broader bill -- got seven Republican votes Tuesday; another version -- this year's stripped-down model -- got eight. But all told, 10 Republicans voted for one version or the other, including three who hadn't supported the bill before: Sam Brownback of Kansas, William Roth of Delaware and Tim Hutchinson of Arkansas.

The alleged problem, according to a recent New York Times editorial, is that politicians are forced to \"haul in vast corrupting sums from special interests looking for favors.\" Proposed solutions range from stricter limits on campaign contributions (the centerpiece of the McCain-Feingold plan), all the way to what the Times calls its \"ideal\": total government financing of federal elections. But portraying businessmen as corrupt \"fat cats\" seeking to buy political influence merely makes them scapegoats for the real villains: the politicians who seek to exert influence over business. In today's mixed economy, with its enormous maze of taxes, subsidies and regulations, government holds the power to cripple any private company. What, then, is the meaning of, say, the $70,000 \"soft money\" contribution to the Republican Party made by a large regional phone company that stood to gain from pending telecommunications legislation?

The media are missing a scandal because the media are the scandal. They are complicit with the portion of the political class currently attempting to impose on the public, in the name of campaign finance reform, speech restrictions of the sort from which the media are immune. But the rationale for this immunity, as explained by the Supreme Court in the First Amendment case most cherished by the media, refutes the argument for the campaign reforms most of the media favor. The Senate is currently debating the McCain-Feingold bill to ban \"soft money\" contributions to political parties. Such money can be used only for certain purposes, such as issue ads, voter registration and turnout drives, and cannot be spent in support of particular candidacies for federal offices. In the 1976 Buckley vs. Valeo ruling, the Supreme Court struck down limits on what candidates could spend, arguing on First Amendment grounds that money is indispensable to political communication, so limiting spending limits speech.