It is not clear that the perceived dangers of corporate participation in politics are real dangers, or that outright prohibition of such participation is the best means of preserving the democratic character of the electoral process. Any controls on corporate spending in initiative campaigns should be firmly based upon articulated conceptions of the corporation\u27s legitimate role in society. This article examines some of these conceptions and their relationship to the process of direct legislation and thereafter makes recommendations for workable controls in light of that analysis
Prohibits corporations with stockholders from making any contribution or expenditure regarding any e...
This article reveals the positions of corporations not only as active players in politics but also a...
We live, it is said, in a second Gilded Age, in which politics is dominated by corporate power and e...
It is not clear that the perceived dangers of corporate participation in politics are real dangers, ...
Since the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision, which allowed corporations to make campaign...
Concern about the role of corporate money in democracy has been a longstanding theme in American pol...
Prohibits corporations, as defined, from making political contributions or expenditures for politica...
The U.S. Supreme Court held in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652 (1990), that it ...
Prohibits corporations, as defined, from making political contributions or expenditures for politica...
Recent studies have demonstrated that massive one-sided spending in opposition to ballot measures ha...
In 2010, the United States Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision ruled that limiting corporate spending in...
Direct democracy was adopted by states to balance the influence and power of corporate interests. Al...
The initiative and referendum were intended to curtail the power of organized interest groups, yet b...
Corporations currently can participate in electoral politics in the United States through various me...
This article argues that legislation that provide special rules is not necessary because the busin...
Prohibits corporations with stockholders from making any contribution or expenditure regarding any e...
This article reveals the positions of corporations not only as active players in politics but also a...
We live, it is said, in a second Gilded Age, in which politics is dominated by corporate power and e...
It is not clear that the perceived dangers of corporate participation in politics are real dangers, ...
Since the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision, which allowed corporations to make campaign...
Concern about the role of corporate money in democracy has been a longstanding theme in American pol...
Prohibits corporations, as defined, from making political contributions or expenditures for politica...
The U.S. Supreme Court held in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652 (1990), that it ...
Prohibits corporations, as defined, from making political contributions or expenditures for politica...
Recent studies have demonstrated that massive one-sided spending in opposition to ballot measures ha...
In 2010, the United States Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision ruled that limiting corporate spending in...
Direct democracy was adopted by states to balance the influence and power of corporate interests. Al...
The initiative and referendum were intended to curtail the power of organized interest groups, yet b...
Corporations currently can participate in electoral politics in the United States through various me...
This article argues that legislation that provide special rules is not necessary because the busin...
Prohibits corporations with stockholders from making any contribution or expenditure regarding any e...
This article reveals the positions of corporations not only as active players in politics but also a...
We live, it is said, in a second Gilded Age, in which politics is dominated by corporate power and e...