State Responses to U.S. Supreme Court Campaign Finance Decisions

Christopher F. Kulesza, Michael G. Miller, Christopher Witko

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Abstract

Recent federal court decisions have deregulated state campaign finance systems to a significant degree. These decisions are not only rooted in First Amendment jurisprudence but also raise issues of federalism. Although most studies of federal-state conflict focus on disputes between state officials and elected federal policy makers, courts are also policy-making institutions, and in the absence of policy making by other federal branches, courts have become the critical federal policy maker in this area. In response to U.S. Supreme Court rulings that deregulate campaign finance rules and are out of step with the policy preferences of many state electorates and officials, states are attempting to resist these rulings, but using different approaches than are used by states in disputes with the Congress or President. We discuss these rulings and state responses to them. We also describe the implications of these dynamics for federalism.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)467-490
Number of pages24
JournalPublius
Volume47
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 1 2017

Fingerprint

federal policy
federalism
Supreme Court
finance
campaign
financial system
federal state
court decision
jurisprudence
amendment
president

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Sociology and Political Science
  • Public Administration

Cite this

Kulesza, Christopher F. ; Miller, Michael G. ; Witko, Christopher. / State Responses to U.S. Supreme Court Campaign Finance Decisions. In: Publius. 2017 ; Vol. 47, No. 3. pp. 467-490.
@article{ec44f2b3ec6c49e1b8098e0f5153e11e,
title = "State Responses to U.S. Supreme Court Campaign Finance Decisions",
abstract = "Recent federal court decisions have deregulated state campaign finance systems to a significant degree. These decisions are not only rooted in First Amendment jurisprudence but also raise issues of federalism. Although most studies of federal-state conflict focus on disputes between state officials and elected federal policy makers, courts are also policy-making institutions, and in the absence of policy making by other federal branches, courts have become the critical federal policy maker in this area. In response to U.S. Supreme Court rulings that deregulate campaign finance rules and are out of step with the policy preferences of many state electorates and officials, states are attempting to resist these rulings, but using different approaches than are used by states in disputes with the Congress or President. We discuss these rulings and state responses to them. We also describe the implications of these dynamics for federalism.",
author = "Kulesza, {Christopher F.} and Miller, {Michael G.} and Christopher Witko",
year = "2017",
month = "7",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1093/publius/pjx028",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "47",
pages = "467--490",
journal = "Publius",
issn = "0048-5950",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",
number = "3",

}

State Responses to U.S. Supreme Court Campaign Finance Decisions. / Kulesza, Christopher F.; Miller, Michael G.; Witko, Christopher.

In: Publius, Vol. 47, No. 3, 01.07.2017, p. 467-490.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

TY - JOUR

T1 - State Responses to U.S. Supreme Court Campaign Finance Decisions

AU - Kulesza, Christopher F.

AU - Miller, Michael G.

AU - Witko, Christopher

PY - 2017/7/1

Y1 - 2017/7/1

N2 - Recent federal court decisions have deregulated state campaign finance systems to a significant degree. These decisions are not only rooted in First Amendment jurisprudence but also raise issues of federalism. Although most studies of federal-state conflict focus on disputes between state officials and elected federal policy makers, courts are also policy-making institutions, and in the absence of policy making by other federal branches, courts have become the critical federal policy maker in this area. In response to U.S. Supreme Court rulings that deregulate campaign finance rules and are out of step with the policy preferences of many state electorates and officials, states are attempting to resist these rulings, but using different approaches than are used by states in disputes with the Congress or President. We discuss these rulings and state responses to them. We also describe the implications of these dynamics for federalism.

AB - Recent federal court decisions have deregulated state campaign finance systems to a significant degree. These decisions are not only rooted in First Amendment jurisprudence but also raise issues of federalism. Although most studies of federal-state conflict focus on disputes between state officials and elected federal policy makers, courts are also policy-making institutions, and in the absence of policy making by other federal branches, courts have become the critical federal policy maker in this area. In response to U.S. Supreme Court rulings that deregulate campaign finance rules and are out of step with the policy preferences of many state electorates and officials, states are attempting to resist these rulings, but using different approaches than are used by states in disputes with the Congress or President. We discuss these rulings and state responses to them. We also describe the implications of these dynamics for federalism.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85026663609&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85026663609&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1093/publius/pjx028

DO - 10.1093/publius/pjx028

M3 - Review article

AN - SCOPUS:85026663609

VL - 47

SP - 467

EP - 490

JO - Publius

JF - Publius

SN - 0048-5950

IS - 3

ER -