2013NORA - Norwegian Open Research ArchivesOpen access

Campaign Finance and the effects of the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

Lisa-Marie Grønning

Open full text 0 citations

Abstract

In the 2010 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Court held that political speech of corporations is entitled to the same rights as political speech by individuals. They ruled that restrictions on independent expenditures by corporations and labor unions are unconstitutional on Frist Amendment grounds. In this thesis I test two hypotheses. First that outside spending in the 2012 Presidential election was abnormally high because of Citizens United and second, that the increase in outside spending benefited the Republican Party in the 2012 Ohio House elections. I find that Citizens United is the reason for the increase in spending by outside groups, and that this benefited the Republican Part in the 2012 Ohio House elections.

Open-access reader

About this research paper

What this paper is about

In the 2010 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Court held that political speech of corporations is entitled to the same rights as political speech by individuals. They ruled that restrictions on independent expenditures by corporations and labor unions are unconstitutional on Frist Amendment grounds. In this thesis I test two hypotheses. First that outside spending in the 2012 Presidential election was abnormally high because of Citizens United and second, that the increase in outside spending benefited the Republican Party in the 2012 Ohio House elections. I find that Citizens United is the reason for the increase in spending by outside groups, and that this benefited the Republican Part in the 2012 Ohio House elections.

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

In the 2010 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Court held that political speech of corporations is entitled to the same rights as political speech by individuals. They ruled that restrictions on independent expenditures by corporations and labor unions are unconstitutional on Frist Amendment grounds. In this thesis I test two hypotheses. First that outside spending in the 2012 Presidential election was abnormally high because of Citizens United and second, that the increase in outside spending benefited the Republican Party in the 2012 Ohio House elections. I find that Citizens United is the reason for the increase in spending by outside groups, and that this benefited the Republican Part in the 2012 Ohio House elections.

Key concepts: Campaign finance, Supreme court, Political science, Commission, Presidential election, Politics, Federal election, Law

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Campaign Finance and the effects of the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission — Research Paper | ScholarLens