Reform Interrupted? State Innovation, Court Decisions, and the Past and Future of Campaign Finance Reform in the States

Christopher Kulesza, Christopher Witko, Eric Waltenburg

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

As politics and policymaking appear to increasingly benefit "special interests" rather than the mass public, reformers, politicians, and the public have often embraced campaign finance reform. Nationally, this was most visible in the McCain-Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act (2002), but a number of states have undertaken major overhauls of their campaign finance systems in recent decades. In this article we discuss these changes to state campaign finance law since the early 1990s. In the process, we update and validate Witko's (2005) measure of state campaign finance stringency for the period of 1992 to 2012. In the last part of the article, we discuss what effect recent U.S. Supreme Court and state court rulings will have on future reform efforts.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)143-159
Number of pages17
JournalElection Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and Policy
Volume15
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 1 2016

Fingerprint

court decision
finance
campaign
innovation
reform
financial system
Supreme Court
politician
act
Law
politics

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Law

Cite this

@article{2ca92c9ef6f040d6918e8630fc016c55,
title = "Reform Interrupted? State Innovation, Court Decisions, and the Past and Future of Campaign Finance Reform in the States",
abstract = "As politics and policymaking appear to increasingly benefit {"}special interests{"} rather than the mass public, reformers, politicians, and the public have often embraced campaign finance reform. Nationally, this was most visible in the McCain-Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act (2002), but a number of states have undertaken major overhauls of their campaign finance systems in recent decades. In this article we discuss these changes to state campaign finance law since the early 1990s. In the process, we update and validate Witko's (2005) measure of state campaign finance stringency for the period of 1992 to 2012. In the last part of the article, we discuss what effect recent U.S. Supreme Court and state court rulings will have on future reform efforts.",
author = "Christopher Kulesza and Christopher Witko and Eric Waltenburg",
year = "2016",
month = "6",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1089/elj.2015.0320",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "15",
pages = "143--159",
journal = "Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and Policy",
issn = "1533-1296",
publisher = "Mary Ann Liebert Inc.",
number = "2",

}

Reform Interrupted? State Innovation, Court Decisions, and the Past and Future of Campaign Finance Reform in the States. / Kulesza, Christopher; Witko, Christopher; Waltenburg, Eric.

In: Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and Policy, Vol. 15, No. 2, 01.06.2016, p. 143-159.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Reform Interrupted? State Innovation, Court Decisions, and the Past and Future of Campaign Finance Reform in the States

AU - Kulesza, Christopher

AU - Witko, Christopher

AU - Waltenburg, Eric

PY - 2016/6/1

Y1 - 2016/6/1

N2 - As politics and policymaking appear to increasingly benefit "special interests" rather than the mass public, reformers, politicians, and the public have often embraced campaign finance reform. Nationally, this was most visible in the McCain-Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act (2002), but a number of states have undertaken major overhauls of their campaign finance systems in recent decades. In this article we discuss these changes to state campaign finance law since the early 1990s. In the process, we update and validate Witko's (2005) measure of state campaign finance stringency for the period of 1992 to 2012. In the last part of the article, we discuss what effect recent U.S. Supreme Court and state court rulings will have on future reform efforts.

AB - As politics and policymaking appear to increasingly benefit "special interests" rather than the mass public, reformers, politicians, and the public have often embraced campaign finance reform. Nationally, this was most visible in the McCain-Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act (2002), but a number of states have undertaken major overhauls of their campaign finance systems in recent decades. In this article we discuss these changes to state campaign finance law since the early 1990s. In the process, we update and validate Witko's (2005) measure of state campaign finance stringency for the period of 1992 to 2012. In the last part of the article, we discuss what effect recent U.S. Supreme Court and state court rulings will have on future reform efforts.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84974624134&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84974624134&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1089/elj.2015.0320

DO - 10.1089/elj.2015.0320

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84974624134

VL - 15

SP - 143

EP - 159

JO - Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and Policy

JF - Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and Policy

SN - 1533-1296

IS - 2

ER -