About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

32 St. Louis U. Pub. L. Rev. 493 (2012-2013)
Leveling the Playing Field: Reconsidering Campaign Finance Reform in the Wake of Arizona Free Enterprise

handle is hein.journals/stlpl32 and id is 523 raw text is: LEVELING THE PLAYING FIELD: RECONSIDERING CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM IN THE WAKE OF ARIZONA FREE ENTERPRISE INTRODUCTION Campaign finance reform and regulation have become areas of increasing governmental and public interest. This is especially so in an era of heightened contribution and expenditure amounts. For example, Barack Obama's campaign, along with the Democratic National Committee, spent over one billion dollars from the beginning of 2011 through the election of 2012.1 Meanwhile, the campaign for the President's Republican opponent, Mitt Romney, along with the Republican National Committee, spent nearly $850 million.2 And while these figures are shockingly high, they do not take into account money spent by independent Super PACs, or political action committees, which spent, in total, more than $600 million in the 2012 election cycle.3 As the amount of money spent in elections continues to increase, the Federal government and states have enacted regulations that attempt to stop the sharp rise in campaign expenditures.4 5 After the passage of the Federal Elections Campaign Act in 1971, there have been many Court decisions that have provided guidance for modem campaign finance regulation jurisprudence.6 One thing the decisions seemingly all have in common is a general avoidance of instituting a so-called leveling 1. Jeremy Ashkenas, et al., The 2012 Money Race: Compare the Candidates, N.Y. TIMES, http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance/ (last visited Apr. 19, 2013). 2. Id. 3. Super PACs, OPEN SECRETS: CTR. FOR RESPONSIVE POLITICS, http://www.opensecrets. org/pacs/superpacs.php (last visited Apr. 19, 2013). 4. See, e.g., Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. § 431 (2000) (invalidated in part by Fed. Election Comm'n v. Wis. Right to Life, 551 U.S. 449 (2007) and Davis v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 554 U.S. 724 (2008)); The Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Act, ARIZ. REV. STAT. ANN. § 16-940 (1956) (overturned in part by Ariz. Free Enter. Club's Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett, 131 S. Ct. 2806 (2011)). 5. See Federal Election Campaign Act, 2 U.S.C. § 431(2000). 6. See, e.g., Citizens United v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 130 S. Ct. 876 (2010); Davis, 554 U.S. 724; Wis. Right to Life, 551 U.S. 449; Randall v. Sorrell, 548 U.S. 230 (2005); McConnell v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 540 U.S. 93 (2003); Fed. Election Comm'n v. Colo. Republican Fed. Campaign Comm., 533 U.S. 431 (2001); Nixon v. Shrink Mo. Gov't PAC, 528 U.S. 377 (2000); Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) (per curiam). 487

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most