Public Law Studies Quarterly

limiting Election Campaign Spending; Basis and ‎Challenges

Document Type : Article

Authors

Mohsen Esmaeli 1
Seyed Ahmad Habibnezhad 2
Alireza Zareshahne 3

1 Associate Professor, Faculty of Law and Political Sciences, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

2 Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, College of Farabi, University of Tehran, Qom, Iran

3 Public law P.h.d, Public Law Group, Faculty of Law, University of Tehran, Qom, Iran

https://doi.org/10.22059/jplsq.2020.291114.2200
Abstract
Concerns about the detrimental effects of money on elections and the diversion of the electoral process to the benefit of the wealthy and exclusion of meritorious from the electoral system have prompted various legal systems to resolve this problem or minimize its effects. But limiting election spending can also be a prelude to challenges such as the restriction of freedom. Therefore, the election finance system should be formulated in such a way that while freedoms are protected, the uneven influence of money on the elections is restrained. This article attempts to identify the relationship between election finance and concept of freedom, including freedom of expression, by applying the principles of electoral taxation and examining the fundamentals of electoral spending reductions. The equalization of election campaign spending amounts to emphasizing a strategy, not solely based on numerical equality and a form of electoral expenditure, but on the basis of substantive equality between candidates in the field.

Keywords

equality
corruption
‎election campaign finance
‎unauthorized funding
‎eligible funding.‎

  1. English

    1. A) Books
    2. Brown, Gillian (1996), Speakers, Listeners and Communication: Explorations in Discourse Analysis, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
    3. Daniels, Norman (1989), Reading Rawls: Critical Studies on Rawls' A Theory of Justice, California, Stanford university press.
    4. Dworkin, Ronald (1996), Freedom's Law: The Moral Reading of the American Constitution, New York, Oxford University Press.
    5. Felknor, Bruce (1992), Political Mischief: Smear, Sabotage, and Reform in U.S. Elections, California, California Praeger Publishers.
    6. Ferguson, Brent & Chisun Lee, (2016), developing empirical evidence for campaign finance cases, New York, Brennan Center for Justice.
    7. Graebner Anderson, Annelise (2000), Political Money: Deregulating American Politics : Selected Writings on Campaign Finance Reform,California, Hoover Institution.
    8. Hamburger, Philip (2007), separation of church and state, Cambridge, Harvard University press.
    9. Kuhner, Timothy (2014), Capitalism v. Democracy: Money in Politics and the Free Market Constitution, California, Stanford University press.
    10. Lever, Annabelle (2013), A Democratic Conception of Privacy, Indiana, Author House.
    11. Lipsitz, Keena lynn (2004), Campaigns and Competition: How to Enhance Voter Knowledge and Deliberation in a Mass Democracy,Berkeley, University of California.
    12. Michael Scanlon, Thomas (2003), The Difficulty of Tolerance: Essays in Political Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
    13. Rowbottom, Jacob (2010), Democracy Distorted: Wealth, Influence and Democratic Politics, Cambridge, Cambridge university press.
    14. Smith, Bradley (2001), Unfree Speech: The Folly of Campaign Finance Reform, Princeton, New Jersey, Princeton University Press.
    15. Vatz, Richard (2014), The Only Authentic Book of Persuasion: The Agenda/Spin Model, Dubuque, Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.
    16. Woll, peter and Stephen Rockwell, (2000), American Political Ideals and Realities, New York, Longman.
    17. Zamir, Eyal & Barak Medina, (2010), Law,Economics, and Morality, New York, Oxford University Press.
    18. Zamir, Eyal & Medina, Barak (2010), Law, Economics, and Morality, New York, Oxford University Press.

     

    1. B) Articles
    2. Austen,Smith (1987), "Interest groups, campaign contributions and probabilistic voting", public choice, Vol. 54, No. 2.
    3. Bopp, James & Lee, Susan (2007), "So there are campaign contribution limits that are too low", Stanford law and policy review, Vol. 18, No.266.
    4. Erdosne Toth, Eva & Meadow S. Graham (2016), "Preparing scientifically literate citizens: pre-service teacher candidates’ use of normative and logical thinking for critically examining news-media", Electronic Journal of Science Education, Vol. 20, No. 1.
    5. Ingber, Stanley (1984), "Market place of ideas: a legitimizing myth", Duck law journal, Vol. 1984, No. 1.
    6. Krotoszyski, Ronald (2015), "Free speech paternalism and free speech exceptionalism: pervasive distrust of government and the contemporary first amendment",Ohio State Law Journal, Vol. 76, No: 3.
    7. Levitt, Steven (1994), "Using Repeat Challengers to Estimate the Effect of Campaign Spending on Election Outcomes in the U.S. House", Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 102, No.4.
    8. McCowan, Tristan (2006), "The foundations of critical questioning in citizenship education", Curriculum without Borders, Vol. 6, No. 2.
    9. Ortiz, Daniel (1998), "The Democratic Paradox of Campaign Finance Reform", Stanford Law Review, Vol. 50, No. 3.
    10. Ortuno-Ortin, Ignacio & Schultz, Christian (2000), "Public funding for political parties", CESifo workingpaper, No. 368.
    11. Smith, Bradley (2017), "Campaign finance and free speech: finding the radicalism in citizen united V. FEC", Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, Vol. 41, No. 1.
    12. Starman, Thomas (2005),"Some talk: Money in politics. A (partial) review of the literature", Public Choice, No. 124.
    13. Storrs, Sam (2013), "Ethical issues in campaign finance reform: Equality vs. free speech", Moral Cents, Vol.2.
    14. Walker, Samuel (1998), "Campaign Finance Reform in the 105th Congress: The Failure to Address Self-Financed Candidates", Hofstra Law Review, Vol. 27.

     

    1. C) Judgements
    2. US Supreme Court (1976), Buckley v. Valeo.
    3. US Supreme Court (1978), First Nat'l Bank of Boston v. Bellotti.
    4. US Supreme Court (2003), McConnell v. Federal Election Commission.

     

    1. D) Websites
    2. https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130722090

     

    References in Persian:

    1. A) Books
    2. Hashemi, Seyyed Mohammad (2005), Human Rights and Basic Freedoms, Tehran: Mizan (In Persian).
    3. Marx, Karl (1843), On the Jewish Question, translator: A. Ofogh, out of place (In Persian).
    4. Rahai, Saeed, (2010), Religious freedom from the perspective of international law, Qom: Mofid University (In Persian).
    5. Rawls, John (2013), Political Liberalism, Moussa Akrami, Tehran: Thaleth (In Persian).
    6. Rawls, John, (2004), Justice as fairness, Irfan Sabeti, Tehran, Qoqnoos (In Persian).
    7. Rawls, John, (2008), theory of justice, Seyyed Mohammad Kamal Sarvan and Reza Davari Ardakani, Tehran: Research Institute of Cultural and Social Studies (In Persian).
    8. Sandel, Michael (1995), Liberalism and its critics, Ahmad Tadaion, Tehran, Scientific and Cultural Publishing Company (In Persian).

     

    1. B) Article
    2. Habibnejad, Seyyed Ahmed (2016), "Conditions for limiting rights and freedoms with emphasis on limitation in the name of public order", Comparative Law Quarterly (Nameh Mofid) (In Persian).

     

    1. C) Documets
    2. World Conference on Human Rights, Vienna, 1993 – OHCHR (In Persian).
Public Law Studies Quarterly
Volume 53, Issue 1
Spring 2023
Spring 2023
Pages 471-490

  • Receive Date 20 November 2019
  • Revise Date 28 May 2020
  • Accept Date 12 July 2020

Home

Journal Process Ethics

Peer Review Process

Submission

Indexing and Abstracting

Contact Us