Political Equality, the Internet, and Campaign Finance Regulation
-
Richard L. Hasen
Despite signs from the 2004 presidential election contest pointing to a larger role for "big money" in the 2008 season, the indicia so far suggest that there is much for egalitarians to cheer. Egalitarians believe that unequal distribution of wealth should play less of a role in determining presidential election outcomes and/or the policies of the president once elected. At this point in the 2008 election season, it appears that big money is beginning to matter less, rather than more, thanks in large part to the enhanced role of the Internet in campaigning and fundraising, and especially thanks to the viability of campaigns funded substantially by small donors. Such a shift is especially important given that the United States Supreme Court has grown increasingly hostile to campaign finance regulation. The promise of small donors, rather than regulation, stands the best chance of countering the role of big money in future presidential elections.
©2011 Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin/Boston
Articles in the same Issue
- Article
- A Collapse of the Campaign Finance Regime?
- From Bad to Worse: The Unraveling of the Campaign Finance System
- Rethinking the Campaign Finance Agenda
- Decline and Fall? The Roberts Court and the Challenges to Campaign Finance Law
- Rolling in the Dough: The Continued Surge in Individual Contributions to Presidential Candidates and Party Committees
- Internet Fundraising in 2008: A New Model?
- Political Equality, the Internet, and Campaign Finance Regulation
- Financing the 2008 Congressional Elections: A Prospective Guide
- BCRA's Impact on the Political Expenditures of Corporate Interests
- The Interest Group Response to Campaign Finance Reform
- Finding the Cost of Campaign Advertising
- Is That a Bundle in Your Pocket, Or . . .?
- Whither Republican Women: The Growing Partisan Gap among Women in Congress
- Review
- Novak on Novak: A Review of Robert D. Novak's The Prince of Darkness: 50 Years Reporting in Washington
- Bridging Divides through Political Talk: Admirable Goal or Harmful Folly?
- Water Cooler Democracy: A Review of Hearing the Other Side: Deliberative versus Participatory Democracy by Diana C. Mutz
- Review of Richard Skinner's More than Money: Interest Group Action in Congressional Elections
- Review of Samples, The Fallacy of Campaign Finance Reform and La Raja, Small Change: Money, Political Parties, and Campaign Finance Reform
Articles in the same Issue
- Article
- A Collapse of the Campaign Finance Regime?
- From Bad to Worse: The Unraveling of the Campaign Finance System
- Rethinking the Campaign Finance Agenda
- Decline and Fall? The Roberts Court and the Challenges to Campaign Finance Law
- Rolling in the Dough: The Continued Surge in Individual Contributions to Presidential Candidates and Party Committees
- Internet Fundraising in 2008: A New Model?
- Political Equality, the Internet, and Campaign Finance Regulation
- Financing the 2008 Congressional Elections: A Prospective Guide
- BCRA's Impact on the Political Expenditures of Corporate Interests
- The Interest Group Response to Campaign Finance Reform
- Finding the Cost of Campaign Advertising
- Is That a Bundle in Your Pocket, Or . . .?
- Whither Republican Women: The Growing Partisan Gap among Women in Congress
- Review
- Novak on Novak: A Review of Robert D. Novak's The Prince of Darkness: 50 Years Reporting in Washington
- Bridging Divides through Political Talk: Admirable Goal or Harmful Folly?
- Water Cooler Democracy: A Review of Hearing the Other Side: Deliberative versus Participatory Democracy by Diana C. Mutz
- Review of Richard Skinner's More than Money: Interest Group Action in Congressional Elections
- Review of Samples, The Fallacy of Campaign Finance Reform and La Raja, Small Change: Money, Political Parties, and Campaign Finance Reform
