Citizens redistricting panels survive test

By Professor Jessica Levinson

This op-ed originally appeared in the Sacramento Bee. Levinson has also provided related commentary to the San Francisco Chronicle, Los Angeles Times, AZ Central and NBC 4-Los Angeles.

The U.S. Supreme Court just saved independent redistricting commissions, but a political earthquake could be coming next term.

Writing for a 5-4 majority, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Monday upheld the ability of citizens commissions to draw congressional district lines. At issue was the elections clause of the U.S. Constitution, which provides that the “Legislature” in each state shall prescribe the “times, places, and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives.”

The majority essentially found that the word “Legislature” includes not just elected lawmakers but also citizens acting in a legislative capacity, for instance when exercising their rights under initiatives or referendums to enact or repeal laws that affect congressional elections.

Had the court ruled the other way, it could have thrown the validity into question of other numerous other laws passed via direct democracy that affect congressional elections – open primaries, voter identification requirements, vote by mail provisions and early voting. In addition, California’s redistricting commission, likely legally indistinguishable from Arizona’s commission, now appears safe from this type of legal challenge. This ruling maintains the status quo throughout the country.

Read the complete op-ed.

Judging the Role of Money in Judicial Elections

By Professor Jessica A. Levinson

This op-ed originally appeared in the Los Angeles Daily Journal.

A judicial candidate, a potential donor and a lawyer walk into a bar. If that bar is located in Florida or one of dozens of states that prohibit judicial candidates from directly soliciting campaign contributions, then that candidate cannot ask the potential donor for money. However, the candidate can form a campaign committee, choose who runs it, look at the donor list, and call those donors to thank them.

Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court is hearing arguments in Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar to consider whether Florida’s prohibition on judicial candidates from making direct campaign solicitations is constitutional. This case is not about whether or how much money judicial candidates can raise, but rather concerns whether they can directly ask for that money.

Advocates of these types of prohibitions contend that they promote the integrity of judges and confidence in the courts because it is problematic and frankly downright unseemly for judicial candidates to directly ask donors for campaign cash.

Let’s be honest, who do we think will give those campaign contributions? Short answer: generally people who may appear before that candidate. Hence a prohibition on the direct solicitation of contributions arguably protects the impartiality of the judiciary and guards against donors being able to exert an undue influence over judges. Advocates therefore claim that the prohibition reduces corruption or the appearance of corruption that can occur when a judicial candidate asks a potential donor for money.

Opponents of the prohibition claim such prohibitions infringe on the First Amendment without properly serving to prevent undue influence or corruption. It is true that the prohibition still allows potentially problematic behavior because judicial candidates still know who gives to their campaigns and can thank those donors. This is an argument that the restriction is not properly tailored to serve its goals. Opponents do not contend the restriction should be broader and prohibit more behavior, but that other options, such as contribution limits or recusal rules, could serve the same governmental interests without the burden on First Amendment rights.

The Critical Federalism Issue at the Heart of the Alabama Redistricting Cases

By Professor Justin Levitt

This post originally appeared on the Election Law Blog.

Justin here, with a thought on last week’s oral argument in two consolidated cases about Alabama’s redistricting process. There’s an issue lurking at the heart of the dispute that may be difficult to spot in the transcript.

The cases concern the rationale behind Alabama’s last state legislative redistricting plan. Press headlines pitched the issue as a tussle between racial reasons and political ones. Such cases can indeed be quite messy … but for better or worse, this dispute is not one of them. Alabama said that its districts were driven by the Voting Rights Act, and not by partisan politics. And by the end of the argument, most of the Court seemed to understand that any deeper partisan impulse was achieved through race-based means. (Look at LULAC — or Judge Kozinski’s Garza opinion — for an explanation of why using race to achieve partisan ends is still race-based action.)

At least some Justices also seemed to understand that Alabama’s districts were not actually driven by the Voting Rights Act. As I’ve written, Alabama instead deployed a poor essentialist facsimile. The Voting Rights Act is a nuanced statute that requires attention to race only after careful consideration of on-the-ground political reality. Alabama cut corners, pegging its districts to raw demographic targets without the necessary homework. Whatever Alabama was following wasn’t the statute on the books.

Which leads to the intriguing buried issue. Why manufacture a false façade for a federal law? Perhaps it was honest mistake about what the statute requires. Perhaps it was an attempt to overpack many African-American voters into a few hyperconcentrated districts, or to change the representative face of the Democratic party in Alabama. Or perhaps the ostensible federal mandate offered the prospect of a convenient path around an inconvenient state structure.

5 Things You Should Know About the California Election

By Professor Jessica Levinson

This post originally appeared on the Huffington Post.

Election day is upon us. What should California voters know?

1. Jerry Brown will be re-elected as the governor.

Drought-stricken California could be hit with torrential rain. Wildfires could sweep the state. A blue moon could shine for three nights in a row. Jerry Brown will still be re-elected.

Do you want to know why? First, because he is Jerry Brown. In California a synonym for "Jerry Brown" is "someone who holds elected office." Brown has held nearly every elected office in the state of California. We know him. We're comfortable enough with him. We're going to re-elect him (again).

Second, because he is running against that guy who oversaw the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). Yes, that's right. You don't even know his name. It is Neel Kashkari, by the way. He is apparently running to see how badly he will lose against the once, current, and future governor. He had handed out gas cards to get people to campaign events, spent a week living as a homeless person, and run a television commercial with a drowning child. Translation? He is going to lose.

2. Gavin Newsom will be re-elected as the lieutenant governor

You know Gavin Newsom, right? He is the former mayor of San Francisco who ordered the city clerk to issue marriage license to same-sex couples back when that violated state law. Still don't know him? He is the one with the slicked back hair who had an affair with the wife of his former deputy chief of staff and campaign manager. I thought that would ring a bell.

Newsom is running against Ron Nehring. Newsom is going to a have "party preference: Democrat" next to his name, while Nehring will have "party preference: Republican" next to his. Since this is California, and Newsom is the incumbent who hasn't done anything disastrous (or otherwise), that means Newsom will win.

A Step Forward to Slay the Gerrymander

By Professor Justin Levitt

In the early days of the Republic, Patrick Henry and James Madison were bitter political opponents. Henry thought that the new Constitution jeopardized states’ rights and individual liberties, and blamed Madison. When Madison sought a seat in the new Congress he had created, Henry sought revenge. He reportedly convinced Virginia’s legislature to draw their very first congressional districts to hurt Madison at the polls.

The burst of partisan pique would feel quite familiar today. For 200 years, American politicians have drawn election district lines to punish their enemies, favor their friends, and lock in their own job security at the voters’ expense. When incumbents gerrymander districts, the public’s partisan preferences are distorted, and communities are carved into electoral bits, to give those in power the best chance of staying in power. We are the only industrialized democracy that permits this conflict of interest.

And New York voters have a rare chance to lead the way out.

Proposal 1 on the November ballot would change the way that New York draws district lines. But more important, it could also change the model for change, across the country.

What politicians really think about Citizens United

By Professor Justin Levitt

This op-ed originally appeared in the Los Angeles Daily News.

The U.S. Senate just debated a constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision about money in politics.

That’s remarkable. We have amended the constitution only 27 times in our country’s history. If a substantial portion of Congress thinks that it is time for number 28, a lot of Americans must be pretty upset about something.

But what has them so upset? The day before the Citizens United decision, Bill Gates had the right to spend as much as he wished urging Americans to vote against Senator Windbag. Corporations were barred from delivering the “vote against Windbag” message. But they could spend as much as they wished urging Americans to understand that Windbag hates puppies, God, apple pie and Betty White.

The Drunkard's Search for Money in Politics

By Professor Justin Levitt

Late at night, a good Samaritan happens upon an intoxicated man crawling under a streetlight, studying the ground.  The drunkard says that he is looking for his keys, and our helpful bystander joins the search.  After a few minutes, the helper asks, “Are you sure this is where you dropped them?” “No,” says the drunk, “I probably dropped them by the bar down the road. But the light’s much better here.”

The phenomenon of the drunkard’s search, often attributed to Abraham Kaplan, afflicts much empirical inquiry.  Researchers seeking quantitative rigor too often head for the available data, fire up STATA, and only as an afterthought offer a few generic caveats about the limitations of the data for the topic at hand.  

Campaign finance analysis is not immune from this problem. In reading some recent studies over the weekend, I noticed a few recurring lapses.

Consider the evaluation of electoral spending by entities other than candidates and parties: “outside” spending, for short. Frequently, studies look to data from the Federal Election Commission (and equivalent state sources) to track the rise of independent expenditures since blockbuster Supreme Court cases like Citizens United, which allowed corporations (and, by logical extension, other non-affiliated groups) to engage in such activity without limits.  

Much Ado About McCutcheon

By Associate Clinical Professor Jessica Levinson

This piece appears in Pacific Standard.

Shaun McCutcheon wants to make political donations to federal candidates. Allow me to clarify; McCutcheon wants to make a LOT of political donations to federal candidates. The Republican National Committee, among others, wants him to be able to do so. So what's the problem?

Currently, McCutcheon can give $2,600 per election directly to a federal candidate, a total of $48,600 per election to all federal candidates, and $74,600 per election to federal political party committees and political action committees, or PACs, that give money to federal candidates. Put another away, McCutcheon (and other individuals) are subject to a $123,200 per election aggregate contribution limit with respect to candidates, political parties, and PACs. McCutcheon, a general contractor living in Alabama, would like to change that. The result is the latest and greatest campaign finance question to hit the high court since Citizens United.

In the early 1970s, in the wake of the Watergate scandals that lead to the resignation of President Nixon, Congress implemented the nation's first comprehensive campaign finance law. The law limited how much could be given to and spent by candidates, how much could be spent by independent groups and organizations, required that certain donations and expenditures be disclosed to the public, and created a system of public campaign financing for presidential candidates.

In 1976, in a decision that remains the bedrock of campaign finance law, Buckley v. Valeo, the U.S. Supreme Court essentially accepted half of Congress' attempt to regulate money in politics. The court upheld limits on contributions, disclosure provisions and the public financing program. However, the court struck down limits on spending by candidates and independent organizations. In the court's patchwork opinion it upheld the limits on the total amount of contributions that donors could give to candidates, political party, and other political committees, finding that those limits were a way to prevent the evasion of the direct limits on contributions from individuals to candidates. The court's analysis is less than satisfying on this point. In the almost 40 years since that decision much has changed regarding campaign finance laws. Money now flows relatively freely, and in some cases in undisclosed amounts, through our political system. But the aggregate limits on contributions have stood.

Now the Supreme Court appears poised to change that and the only question for McCutcheon is how big his likely win will be. In order to determine the size and scope of McCutcheon's potential victory, we need to look at the current state of the law.

Symposium: Aggregate Limits and the Fight over Frame

By Associate Professor Justin Levitt

The following essay is part of a SCOTUSBlog online symposium on McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission.

Photographs purport to show objective facts. But whether they illuminate or distort our understanding of the world depends entirely on choices -- of lens, of frame -- that the photographer has made. Much of constitutional law is the same: the choice of lens and frame drives the Supreme Court's understanding of our rights and obligations. Without recognizing this truth, it is virtually impossible to understand the Court's campaign finance jurisprudence.

McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission offers a dizzying fight over lens and frame. The briefs presented to the Court zoom from micro to macro and back, often within sentences of the same brief. The basic structure of the reason for the fight, at least, is clear. McCutcheon is about aggregate caps on contributions to federal candidates, party committees, and PACs that donate to candidates and parties. There are limits on what I can give to any individual federal candidate. And then there are limits on what I can give to all federal candidates, total. The same is true for parties and PACs. This case is about the totals.

From the flattest perspective, this case has already been decided. This case challenges aggregate limits. Buckley v. Valeo (1976), the progenitor of the modern campaign finance regime, upheld a system of aggregate limits. Easy. How to view aggregate limits
Much too easy. Buckley's 294 pages cover the entirety of the landmark Federal Election Campaign Act. It gave aggregate limits six sentences. Two of the six were devoted to describing the limits. One noted that the issue had "not been separately addressed at length by the parties." Three more disposed of the substance. This Court is unlikely to believe that its focus is confined by those three sentences. (Similarly, granting cert. to revisit these three sentences provides little reason to believe that the Court is interested in revisiting Buckley entirely.)
Another shallow lens simply looks to conventional wisdom, and the caricature of a relentlessly deregulatory Court. Citizens United looms, larger than life. Like Citizens United, the legislation challenged in McCutcheon also constrains campaign-related cash. And like Citizens United, the challenge has been brought in part by James Bopp, who has a remarkable record before the Court. Easy.

Of contributions and expenditures and the land in between

By Associate Professor Justin Levitt

This commentary was cross-posted to the Election Law Blog.

In the world of campaign finance, the constitutional distinction between contributions and expenditures has been one of the primary, comparatively stable, fault lines.  This has been true since at least since Buckley v. Valeo, the progenitor (and for some, original sin) of the modern campaign finance regime.  The Court has relatively consistently reviewed limits on most expenditures with greater scrutiny than limits on contributions. 

In the Supreme Court’s latest foray into campaign finance, the McCutcheon v. FEC case to be argued this fall, plaintiffs are arguing that the regulations in question blur the categories.  Those regulations impose aggregate limits on donations to federal candidates, parties, and PACs that give to candidates.  I may give no more than $5,200 to any individual federal candidate over a two-year campaign cycle.  In that same period, I may give no more than $48,600 to federal candidates, total.  McCutcheon is about the latter, total, limits.

The McCutcheon plaintiffs have argued that these aggregate limits are something of a hybrid, and ultimately more like expenditures than contributions.  Bob Bauer, here, also finds the distinction blurry, noting that the rules restrict “the total amount that a contributor can spend on contributions.”

Welcome to the super PAC era

By Associate Clinical Professor Jessica Levinson

This post originally appeared on KCET's website.
Is candidate centered campaign fundraising a thing of the past?

Greetings, and welcome to the Super PAC era. Thanks in part to the Supreme Court's 2010 decision in Citizens United, we now have new entities called "Super PACs," which are organizations that can raise and spend unlimited political funds.

Contributions given directly to candidates are unlimited, but again, contributions to outside groups such as Super PACs are not. Therefore, as many predicted, individuals and entities who wish to support candidates but have given up to the legal limit, now have a new outlet for their campaign donations. This pattern, however, is nothing new. Before there were Super PACs big donors gave to political parties or other outside organizations like independent expenditure groups.

Campaign fundraising by candidates is increasingly being marginalized and fundraising by independent groups including Super PACs is coming to the forefront. We are seeing this phenomenon play out real time in the Los Angeles mayoral race where the contribution limit to candidates is $1,300 both in the primary and the runoff elections.

While fundraising by candidates is still outpacing fundraising by Super PACs in the mayoral race, at some point in the near future that could change. In this election both candidates have raised approximately $5.7 million and independent groups have raised roughly $4.7 million for Greuel and $1.3 million for Garcetti. That means about one-third of the money raised in the mayor campaign has been raised by outside organizations. Again, the lion's share has gone to groups supporting Greuel.

Of course those giving money to outside groups are generally those who have a financial interest in what happens in City Hall. For instance, donors include real estate developers, labor unions, members of the entertainment industry, and lawyers and law firms. This set up raises a host of problems including corruption, the appearance of corruption, undue access and preferential treatment.

Because of the Supreme Court's misguided interpretation of limits on campaign contributions and expenditures, there is little hope, at least in the short term, of limiting how much can be given to and spent by outside groups. The best way to regulate the influence of money in politics is to advocate for robust campaign disclosure.

The Case of Lady Gaga and California Political Fundraising

By Associate Clinical Professor Jessica Levinson

Wondering if legislators ever go back to their offices and "just dance?" Don't think your elected officials have a "poker face?" Dubious as to whether your lawmakers were "born this way?" Curious as to whether, just like us, our lawmakers sometimes have a "bad romance?"

We may not know the answer to those questions, but we do know that State Senators Ricardo Lara and Ron Calderon were at Staples Center this past weekend to take in a Lady Gage concert. Is this official business?

Well, it's officially a fundraising event for them. Lara is running for re-election to the Senate and Calderon is running for state controller next year. The two democratic senators were slated to hold a joint campaign fundraiser at the concert. Contributors who gave $3,900 were rewarded with a ticket to the concert and a night in a nearby hotel.

Lara and Calderon's joint fundraiser at Lady Gaga's concert likely says less about their devotion (or lack thereof) to the performer than it does about their desire to raise large campaign donations at popular venues. In our current system, in which campaign contributions to candidates are limited, but expenditures by candidate campaigns are not, the third for campaign funds is all but unquenchable. Put another way, once candidates get on the fundraising treadmill, it is difficult to see when and how they will ever get off that treadmill.

The seemingly endless fundraising race is not, of course, the fault of the candidates and officeholders. The current legal framework breeds the almost ceaseless need for campaign cash. This actually harms not only the public, but also officeholders who spend so much of their time fundraising rather than legislating or governing.
Here is hoping that Lady Gaga's next hit is about that sexy topic we call "political reform."

This post originally appeared on KCET-TV's SoCal Focus blog, for which the author writes regularly.

Do Ballot Initiatives Foster the Darker Side of Political Spending?

By Associate Clinical Professor Jessica Levinson

Californians will soon go to the polls to weigh in on no less than eleven ballot initiatives. These initiatives could change the law on everything from the death penalty to the labeling of food.

I have previously written here about the pitfalls of the initiative process. This mechanism of direct democracy, designed to guard against the power special interests held over our elected officials, is now similarly controlled by special interests. Money is the driving factor behind which proposals qualify for the ballot.

Large sums are spent not only to pay signature gatherers to get proposals placed on the ballot but also to support or oppose those measures once they qualify for the ballot. One need only to open the mailbox or certain websites, or turn on the television or radio, to see the enormous amounts of money being spent to attempt to sway voters on these eleven initiatives.

Last week I wrote about a large donation, $11 million to be exact, given by an Arizona non-profit corporation to two ballot measure committees in California.

Proposition 32: The Battle Heats Up

By Associate Clinical Professor Jessica Levinson

On November 6, California voters will be faced with 11 ballot measures. Ten are initiatives, one is a referendum (what's the difference?), and none of these were legislatively initiated. One of these initiatives is Proposition 32, which is deceptively being peddled as a good government reform. It is not.

Prop 32 would prohibit unions from using funds deducted from payroll for political purposes. The prohibition also applies to corporations and government contractors. Among other things, it would also prohibit unions and corporations from giving campaign contributions directly to candidates or the committees that candidates control.

While it may seem even-handed, it will have a much, much greater impact on unions, dramatically reducing their power, than corporations. Corporations have many other avenues to raise political funds. Money is, after all, power, particularly in political campaigns in California.

So who would support Prop 32, a proposal to similar, rejected ones in 1998 and 2005? Recently an organization connected to the conservative Koch brothers (who have spent enormous sums to support conservative causes and candidates throughout the nation) gave $4 million to a new committing supporting the passage of Prop 32. It is important to note that the non-profit organization that came forward with these funds does not have to report its donors.

Supporters of Prop 32 had previous raised approximately $3 million; opponents have raised more than $36 million. For a breakdown of who is donating (at least of who is legally reportable), check KCET's campaign finance database here.

If you want unions to have much less political power in California but are comfortable with corporations maintaining their current level of control, and you don't mind voting "yes" on ballot initiatives, then you might want to take a look at Prop 32. If you are either opposed to initiatives, or believe in a more even-handed approach to reducing the influence of money in politics, then Prop 32 is not for you.

Citizens United gives free speech a high price

By Associate Clinical Professor Jessica Levinson

This op-ed originally appeared on Politico.

As election 2012 progresses, there's continuing hubbub about the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision, which paved the way for super PACs. Proponents of campaign-finance laws see the ruling as opening the floodgates for unlimited, often undisclosed, money to overwhelm our political system. Opponents view it as a victory of free speech over government regulation.

Where does the truth lie? While super PACs may be "speaking" up a storm, it's now difficult to hear anyone else. That can't be good in a representative democracy, which has long prided itself on protecting free speech.

A quick tour through the campaign-finance law landscape demonstrates there is much to be concerned about -- unless you're a wealthy donor or well-funded corporation.

Read the complete story here.

Citizens United: answering unasked questions

By Associate Clinical Professor Jessica Levinson

This op-ed originally appeared in the May 30, 2012 edition of the Daily Journal.

Much of the backlash around the Supreme Court's much-maligned 2010 decision in Citizens United v. FEC focuses on the battle cry that "corporations are not people." Well, as with all things, corporate personhood is a complex area of the law that boils down to sometimes they are, and sometimes they aren't. The substance of the Citizens United decision essentially comes down to two conclusions, both of which I believe are ill conceived.

First, the thin majority found that speaker-based identity restrictions are impermissible. Put another way, if the government cannot prevent individuals from spending money on independent expenditures, then neither can it prevent corporations from doing so. For a variety of reasons, which I have detailed in a recent law review article, I believe that in the campaign finance arena corporations should not, in fact, be treated as identical to individuals. While corporations are certainly made up of people, they are artificial entities created with numerous state-created benefits.

Second, the court, led by Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, found that independent expenditures are not corrupting. This conclusion seems to make little sense in the real world. But as a result of some legal acrobatics, the court concluded that groups and individuals who spend money for or against candidates, but who do not coordinate with campaigns, cannot corrupt candidates. So go ahead and spend $10 or $10 million, no need to worry about potentially corrupting your favored candidate.

These two conclusions have led to the rise of so-called Super PACs. These political committees are independent only committees. Because they only spend money independent of campaigns, the money they spend cannot lead to fears of corruption (according to the court), so they can raise and spend unlimited sums. I would venture a guess that the average member of the public believes that candidates are not only aware of those spending large sums with the help of Super PACs, but they are indeed extremely grateful for such help. This gratefulness can easily cross over to a corruptive relationship, or at lease the appearance of such a relationship.

Should Political Bloggers Have to Disclose Payments From a Campaign?

By Associate Clinical Professor Jessica Levinson

If you are reading this post, then you, like me, may get most of your political information online. You may also have a number of favorite political bloggers. You may appreciate their voice, perspective, point of view, or just find them entertaining. Most of my favorite bloggers have a particular perspective, and it is rarely hidden. I neither expect nor crave blogs devoid of opinion.

You, like me, may know a little background on your preferred bloggers. It helps me to evaluate how much weight or credibility I will give to a certain argument to know, as we say, where the author is coming from. What I likely don't know, however, is whether that blogger is paid by a political campaign. Ann Ravel, Chairwoman of the Fair Political Practices Commission, the state's political watchdog agency, would like to change that.

If Ravel's proposal becomes law then California would become the first state to provide such information to the public.

The freedom of the expression is one of the most important, if not the most important, right enumerated in the United States Constitution. With very few exceptions, people should be able to say whatever they want, and the public should be able to listen to whomever they want. The same is true, with equal or greater force, for members of the press, whose function is to provide information to the public. A government that censors political speech by some speakers would and should be repugnant to our sensibilities.

However, this proposal does not limit the amount of information the people can disseminate or the public could receive. Rather it would just tell us something about who is speaking, thus providing the public with more information.

Currently campaigns must disclose payments to bloggers, but bloggers need not disclose payments received from campaigns. That may soon change. The details and legality of this plan must be worked out, but it is certainly worthy of serious discussion.

Here is a disclosure of my own. I know Chairwoman Ravel and have great respect for her. Therefore when she makes a proposal I give it weight. It seems the public should be entitled to make a similar judgment about their political bloggers by knowing who is helping to fund their speech.

Jessica A. Levinson is a visiting associate clinical professor at Loyola Law School. She studies governance issues, including campaign finance, ethics, ballot initiatives, redistricting, term limits, and state budgets.

[This post also appeared on kcet.org.]

We the Corporations?

By Associate Clinical Professor Jessica Levinson

This op-ed originally appeared in the April 4, 2012 edition of the Daily Journal.

We the Corporations?

While the Republican presidential nominee and the ultimate victors of contests throughout the nation may be unknown, one thing is clear: the 2012 election will break campaign fundraising records. This is the first presidential election since the Supreme Court's fateful decision in Citizens United v. FEC. Since that decision, there has been a proliferation of campaign spending, most notably by so-called "Super PAC" organizations. These are independent-expenditure only political committees. Republican-backed Super PACs have already raised $81 million to date this election cycle. (Interestingly, only 17 individuals account for contributing nearly half of that amount to Super PACs.) Because of regulations promulgated under the internal revenue service, contributions by certain non-profit organizations to these Super PACs can remain undisclosed, and therefore hidden from public view.

So how did we get to this place of largely anonymous, largely unlimited campaign spending? The Court's decision in Citizens United, while surprisingly incremental in some ways, opened the doors for the record-breaking spending we are now seeing. In Citizens United, the Court essentially came to two conclusions. First, the Court said that speaker-based identity restrictions are impermissible. This means that if a restriction cannot be validly imposed on an individual, then it similarly cannot be imposed on a corporation. Second, the Court found that independent expenditures are not corrupting. So go ahead and spend $100 million in support of your favorite candidate (or against that candidate's opponent). As long as your expenditure is "independent" it cannot corrupt, according to our nation's highest court.

Although it may seem abundantly obvious, there are a number of reasons why for-profit corporations - artificial entities made up of individuals - should not be treated as the same as individuals in the campaign finance context. While certain non-profit corporations are essentially voluntary political associations, and therefore restricting their speech raises important political expression and association concerns, the same is not true of for-profit corporations.

A New Campaign Finance System Based On When Contributors Give

By Associate Clinical Professor Jessica Levinson

This op-ed originally appeared in the Los Angeles The Daily Journal.

This month marks the two-year anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court's much maligned decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 130 S. Ct. 876 (Jan. 21, 2010). In that case, a bare majority of the Court found that for purposes of spending money in the political marketplace, corporations must be treated as identical to people. The Court also ruled that expenditures made independent of candidate campaigns - no matter how large those expenditures are - cannot be corrupted.

The result of the Citizens United decision is that corporations can spend unlimited sums in elections. We have already seen the consequences in the Supreme Court's handiwork with the advent of Super PAC spending in Iowa and New Hampshire. This is surely only the beginning.

Since the Supreme Court's January 2010 decision, many have been scrambling to find new ways to limit the influence of money in politics. One largely unexplored way to limit the negative consequences of money in electoral campaigns is to institute temporal restrictions on campaign contributions. I recently published a law review article, entitled "Timing Is Everything: A New Model for Countering Corruption Without Silencing Speech in Elections," in which I advocate for the imposition of limits on when money may be given and spent during campaigns.

Most jurisdictions seek to stem the pernicious influence of money on electoral processes by limiting the size of campaign contributions. Those jurisdictions have concluded that large campaign contributions may give rise to actual or apparent corruption and therefore place per election limits on the size of campaign contributions. However, other jurisdictions impose restrictions based on when those contributions are made and received. These temporal (or time-based) campaign contribution limits may take various forms, including pre-election, legislative-session, off-year, or post-election restrictions on contributions.

Ballot Initiatives Have Harmed California

By Associate Clinical Professor Jessica Levinson

When people pose questions like, "Do you want to save our democracy? Our environment? Our schools?" I either answer "no" or keep walking. It is signature gathering time in California, and most of us have experienced that awkward moment when we are approached by an energetic, and often aggressive, petition gatherer. Inevitably the signature gatherer poses the type of question that would seem unimaginable to answer in the negative. And yet, I do, if I respond at all. Why?

The more I think about and study the initiative process, the more I feel committed to the idea that I will not sign petitions for ballot measures. I say this with full awareness of the fact that I am and have been a strong proponent of the independent redistricting commission, which was created by a ballot initiative. I have struggled with the idea that perhaps initiatives should only affect governmental processes such as redistricting, term limits and campaign finance laws. The problem with that approach has played out thanks to our term limit law.

So do not get me wrong, I think at least a portion of these proposed ballot initiatives would support worthwhile ideas or causes, I just do not think they should be made into the law through the initiative process. (The problem, of course, is that some of these ideas may never be enacted via the legislative process as this is a representative democracy, and frankly, that is what happens). In addition, many -- far too many -- of these proposed ballot initiatives sound like great ideas until one actually reads the text of the proposed law.

[Click here to continue reading Levinson's commentary on KCET.org]