DOCSLIB.ORG

Teaching About Big Money in Elections: to Amend Or Not to Amend the U.S

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Teaching About Big Money in Elections: to Amend Or Not to Amend the U.S Social Education 76(5), pp 236–241 ©2012 National Council for the Social Studies Teaching about Big Money in Elections: To Amend or Not to Amend the U.S. Constitution? James M. M. Hartwick and Brett L. M. Levy “Politics has become so expensive that it takes a lot of money even to be defeated.” — Will Rogers (1879–1935) Last summer, California and Massachusetts became the sixth and seventh states— activity is independent of the candidates’ along with Hawaii, New Mexico, Vermont, Rhode Island, and Maryland—to send a campaigns. These cases led to the rise resolution to the U.S. Congress calling for a constitutional amendment to (1) end the of “superPACs.” As long as they do not court’s extension of personhood rights to corporations, and (2) enable the government coordinate with campaigns and do not to definitively regulate campaign finances. This fall, with the bipartisan support of contribute directly to the candidates, its Democratic governor and Republican lieutenant governor, Montana is asking superPACs can raise unlimited funds voters to consider a referendum advising Montana’s congressional delegation to sup- from corporations, non-profits, unions, port such a constitutional amendment. Meanwhile, the current Congress has already and individuals and may spend those considered more than a dozen resolutions to amend the Constitution to strengthen funds to promote their favored political Congress’s ability to limit corporate funding of election activities, and 20 states have candidate or cause. In addition, non-prof- introduced similar resolutions.1 its, like “social welfare” groups (501 [c][4] s), may engage in unlimited non-coordi- Political support is growing. More than Elections Commission (FEC) decision, nated independent spending on so-called 120 members of Congress, 1,800 pub- American citizens and policymakers educational issue advertisements, and lic officials,2 and 200 cities, towns, and have vigorously debated how and if there unlike PACs and superPACs, these non- counties across the United States have should be limits on corporate rights and profits are not required to disclose their called for such an amendment.3 When on the increasing power of big money in donor list.6 This has opened the door to the Senate held a Judiciary Subcommittee politics. In Citizens United, the Supreme large contributions from corporations hearing on the topic in July, it received Court ruled 5–4 that corporations and and others, perhaps even foreign interests, nearly 1.9 million pro-Amendment unions, like individual citizens, are who wish to influence elections and keep signatures,4 and in August, President endowed with free speech rights that can their influence secret. Obama indicated his support when he be exercised through political expendi- While the influence of big money on stated: “Over the longer term, I think we tures and that limits on such “speech” elections is not new, immediately after need to seriously consider mobilizing a are unconstitutional. Two months later, these landmark rulings, election spending constitutional amendment process to the D.C. Court of Appeals extended in the 2010 midterm (non-presidential) overturn Citizens United , assuming the these rules by deciding in SpeechNow v. election increased exponentially over the Supreme Court doesn’t revisit it.”5 Clearly, FEC that non-profit political organiza- previous midterm elections.7 Since 2010, a movement is emerging, and given the tions, such as political action committees “outside” election spending—campaign high stakes, fostering understanding of (PACs), could legally accept unlimited expenditures by individuals and orga- the issues at hand is paramount. donations for the purpose of running nizations not officially affiliated with What is all the fuss about? Since the advertisements advocating the election candidates—has increased enormously. landmark Citizens United v. Federal or defeat of candidates, as long as such Big donors have played an increasingly Social Education 236 prominent role in supporting election Excerpts from the Citizens United vs. FEC Decision campaigns, largely through superPACs. For example, in the 2012 Republican presidential primaries, 20 wealthy donors contributed about half the funds 8 Majority Opinion Dissenting Opinion of the major superPACs , and one couple (Justice Kennedy) (Justice Stevens) expects to give up to $100 million for this year’s election.9 All totaled, spending on the 2012 presidential contest is projected Although they make enormous contri- to exceed $2 billion, breaking all previ- Under the antidistortion rationale, butions to our society, corporations are ous records for election spending.10 Congress could also ban political speech not actually members of it. They cannot With the huge sums of money being of media corporations.…Differential vote or run for office…[t]he financial devoted to elections, what do big donors treatment of media corporations and resources, legal structure, and instru- other corporations cannot be squared mental orientation of corporations raise expect in return? A thorough analysis of with the First Amendment, and there legitimate concerns about their role in elected officials’ voting records indicate is no support for the view that the the electoral process. Our lawmakers have that politicians respond more readily Amendment’s original meaning would a compelling constitutional basis, if not to the opinions of constituents who are permit suppressing media corporations’ also a democratic duty, to take measures more able to make financial contribu- political speech. designed to guard against the potentially tions.11 In addition, there is a widespread deleterious effects of corporate spending in local and national races. perception of the corrupting influence on political leaders as a result of their Although the First Amendment pro- need to secure big dollars to get elected. vides that “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech,” 441b’s It might also be added that corpora- According to a recent Brennan Center for prohibition on corporate independent tions have no consciences, no beliefs, Justice at NYU School of Law poll, nearly expenditures is an outright ban on speech, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires. 70 percent of Americans believe super- backed by criminal sanctions. It is a ban Corporations help structure and facili- PAC spending will lead to corruption, notwithstanding the fact that a PAC cre- tate the activities of human beings, to be and 85 percent of those who expressed sure, and their ‘personhood’ often serves ated by a corporation can still speak, for an opinion believe that, compared with a PAC is a separate association from the as a useful legal fiction. But they are not corporation. Because speech is an essen- themselves members of ‘We the People’ past elections, the money being spent by tial mechanism of democracy—it is the by whom and for whom our Constitution political groups this year is more likely means to hold officials accountable to the was established. to lead to corruption.12 Undue influence, people—political speech must prevail or at the very least the perception of quid against laws that would suppress it by pro quo corruption, is troubling and design or inadvertence. The Court’s ruling threatens to undermine undermines citizens’ faith in democracy. that integrity of elected institutions across the Nation. The path it has taken to reach Proposals for a Constitutional its outcome will, I fear, do damage to this Amendment We now conclude that independent institution. expenditures, including those made by In the current Congress, there have corporations, do not give rise to corrup- been more than a dozen resolutions to tion or the appearance of corruption. The marketplace of ideas is not actually a amend the Constitution to strengthen place where items—or laws—are meant to Congress’s ability to limit corporate be bought and sold[.] funding of election activities and nul- lify the Citizens United ruling.13 Along with the congressional proposals, there With the advent of the Internet, prompt At bottom, the Court’s opinion is thus disclosure of expenditures can provide a rejection of the common sense of the are many individuals and groups (e.g., shareholders and citizens with the infor- American people, who have recognized a Move to Amend, Free Speech for the mation needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable for their posi- need to prevent corporations from under- People, Common Cause, and Public tions…This transparency enables the elec- mining self-government since the founding, Citizen) who are seeking to bring about torate to make informed decisions and and who have fought against the distinctive an amendment to address the problem give proper weight to different speakers corrupting potential of corporate election- of money in politics. and messages. eering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a strange time to repudiate that com- While these groups and individuals mon sense. appear to agree on the problem, the wording of the proposed amendments October 2012 237 www.restoreourfuture.com www.prioritiesusaaction.org varies. However, most seek to reverse fourth section, legislators at the state and so. Given that many citizens and legisla- the Citizens United decision, end cor- federal levels would be constitutionally tors would need to be persuaded, these porate personhood rights,14 and affirm permitted to limit the amount of money are significant hurdles to clear. the power of legislators to regulate that non-profits, unions, and individu- Despite the movement to amend the funds aimed at influencing electoral als could contribute to candidates and Constitution, national consensus has outcomes.15 Meanwhile, a few seek to non-affiliated political organizations (e.g., yet to be reached. Numerous arguments charge Congress with enacting a public superPACs). Thus, the amendment as a opposing a constitutional amendment financing system16 and make Election whole would enable Congress to impose are provided on page 242 in Table 1: Day a federal holiday.17 One proposed significant spending limits that Citizens Examples of Arguments and Resources.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Theodore Olson, Conservative Stalwart, to Represent 'Dreamers' In
    Theodore Olson, Conservative Stalwart, to Represent ‘Dreamers’ in Supreme Court By Adam Liptak • Sept. 26, 2019 o WASHINGTON — The young immigrants known as “Dreamers” have gained an unlikely ally in the Supreme Court. Theodore B. Olson, who argued for robust executive power in senior Justice Department posts under Republican presidents, will face off against lawyers from President Trump’s Justice Department in a case over Mr. Trump’s efforts to shut down a program that shields some 700,000 young undocumented immigrants from deportation and allows them to work. In an interview in his office, Mr. Olson said he had generally taken a broad view of presidential authority, particularly in the realm of immigration. “Executive power is important, and we respect it,” he said. “But it has to be done the right way. It has to be done in an orderly fashion so that citizens can understand what is being done and people whose lives have depended on a governmental policy aren’t swept away arbitrarily and capriciously. And that’s what’s happened here.” Mr. Olson has argued 63 cases in the Supreme Court, many of them as solicitor general under President George W. Bush. In private practice, he argued for the winning sides in Bush v. Gore, which handed the presidency to Mr. Bush, and Citizens United, which amplified the role of money in politics. But Mr. Olson disappointed some of his usual allies when he joined David Boies, his adversary in Bush v. Gore, to challenge California’s ban on same-sex marriage. That case reached the Supreme Court and helped pave the way for the court’s 2015 decision establishing a constitutional right to such unions.
    [Show full text]
  • Conflicts of Interest in Bush V. Gore: Did Some Justices Vote Illegally? Richard K
    Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law Hofstra Law Faculty Scholarship Spring 2003 Conflicts of Interest in Bush v. Gore: Did Some Justices Vote Illegally? Richard K. Neumann Jr. Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/faculty_scholarship Recommended Citation Richard K. Neumann Jr., Conflicts of Interest in Bush v. Gore: Did Some Justices Vote Illegally?, 16 Geo. J. Legal Ethics 375 (2003) Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/faculty_scholarship/153 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hofstra Law Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ARTICLES Conflicts of Interest in Bush v. Gore: Did Some Justices Vote Illegally? RICHARD K. NEUMANN, JR.* On December 9, 2000, the United States Supreme Court stayed the presidential election litigation in the Florida courts and set oral argument for December 11.1 On the morning of December 12-one day after oral argument and half a day before the Supreme Court announced its decision in Bush v. Gore2-the Wall Street Journalpublished a front-page story that included the following: Chief Justice William Rehnquist, 76 years old, and Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, 70, both lifelong Republicans, have at times privately talked about retiring and would prefer that a Republican appoint their successors.... Justice O'Connor, a cancer survivor, has privately let it be known that, after 20 years on the high court,'she wants to retire to her home state of Arizona ...
    [Show full text]
  • Bibliography on World Conflict and Peace
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 097 246 SO 007 806 AUTHOR Boulding, Elise; Passions, J. Robert TITLE Bibliography on World Conflict and Peace. INSTITUTION American Sociological Association, Washington, D.C.; Consortium on Peace Research, Education, and Development, Boulder, Colo. PUB DATE Aug 74 NOT? 82p. AVAILABLE FROMBibliography Project, c/o Dorothy Carson, Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80302 ($2.50; make checks payable to Boulding Projects Fund) EDRS PRICE MF-$0.75 BC Not Available from !DRS. PLUS POSTAGE DESCRIPTORS Bibliographies; *Conflict Resolution; Development; Disarmament; Environment; *Futures (of Society); *Global Approach; Instructional Materials; International Education; international Law; International Organizations; *Peace; Political Science; Social Action; Systems Approach; *World Affairs IDENTIFIERS *Nonviolence ABSTRACT This bibliography is compiled primarily in response to the needs of teachers and students in the new field of conflict and peace studies, defined as the analysis of the characteristics of the total world social system which make peace more probable. The introduction includes some suggestions on how to use the bibliography, sources of literature on war/peace studies, and a request to users for criticisms and suggestions. Books, monographs, research reports, journal articles, or educational materials were included when they were:(1) related to conflict management at every social level,(2) relevant to nonviolence, and (3) classic statements in an academic specialization, such as foreign policy studies when of particular significance for conflict studies. A subject guide to the main categories of the bibliography lists 18 major topics with various numbered subdivisions. Th%. main body of the bibliography lists citations by author and keys this to the topic subdivisions.
    [Show full text]
  • Hamdan V. Rumsfeld: Establishing a Constitutional Process
    S. HRG. 109–1056 HAMDAN V. RUMSFELD: ESTABLISHING A CONSTITUTIONAL PROCESS HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION JULY 11, 2006 Serial No. J–109–95 Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary ( U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 43–111 PDF WASHINGTON : 2009 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001 VerDate Nov 24 2008 11:01 Apr 27, 2009 Jkt 043111 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\43111.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts JON KYL, Arizona JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware MIKE DEWINE, Ohio HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin JOHN CORNYN, Texas CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois TOM COBURN, Oklahoma MICHAEL O’NEILL, Chief Counsel and Staff Director BRUCE A. COHEN, Democratic Chief Counsel and Staff Director (II) VerDate Nov 24 2008 11:01 Apr 27, 2009 Jkt 043111 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\43111.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC C O N T E N T S STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS Page Feingold, Hon. Russell D., a U.S. Senator from the State of Wisconsin, pre- pared statement ..................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Montana: the Last, Best Place?
    CHAPTER 2 Montana: The Last, Best Place? o understand politics in Montana and the process of representation, one T does not begin with people or politicians. One begins with place, because without place the rest does not—cannot—be made to make sense. How Montanans understand themselves, their representatives, their history, and their relationship to others—including the federal government—begins and ends with place. It is also place that presents Montanans with their greatest challenges and opportuni- ties. To use Richard Fenno’s terminology, we must begin with the geographic constituency—not only as a physical space and place, but as a shared idea and experience. To understand Montana and Montanans, we must start with the land known variously as the Treasure State, Big Sky Country,distribute or perhaps the most evocative: The Last, Best Place. In this chapter, I provide the reader with a short historyor of Montana’s relation- ship to the land, its historical development, the complicated relationship it has with the federal government, and the challenges the state faces as it transitions from a resource-intensive economy to a more diverse one based upon tourism and hi-tech industries. I claim that the deep connection Montanans have with their physical surroundings shapes howpost, they view politics, the cleavages which exist among them, and the representatives they choose to represent them. Place also dictates the representational choices members of Congress make to build trust with their constituents. In particular, members of Congress are careful to cultivate a representational style known as “one of us” with their constituents.
    [Show full text]
  • Tribal Relations Report 2007 the Art of Cooperation OFFICE of the GOVERNOR STATE of MONTANA
    TRIBAL RELATIONS REPORT 2007 THE ART OF COOPERATION OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR STATE OF MONTANA BRIAN SCHWEITZER JOHN BOHLINGER GOVERNOR LT. GOVERNOR September 15, 2007 I am pleased to present the 2007 Tribal Relations Report showcasing the major accomplishments of the state fiscal year, from July 2006 to June 2007, between the State of Montana and Tribal Nations. Much has been accomplished over the course of the last fiscal year, including: • the appropriation of $1.6 million in grants for Indian economic development; • the recommendation by the Northwest Power and Conservation Council for the disbursement of $18 million in funding to the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes to purchase land and conservation easements in the Flathead Basin; • the employment of nearly 600 tribal members, with over $3.4 million in wages going into reservation economies, for road construction and repair projects; • the signing of a groundbreaking Medicaid Agreement between the State and the Chippewa Cree Nation, the first of its kind in the country; • the signing of the first ever tribal-state gaming compact with the Fort Belknap Community Council, representing the Assiniboine and Gros Ventre Nations; and • the appropriation of fifteen million dollars by the State as part of the overall water rights compact settlement with the Blackfeet Nation. The State has entered a new era in its relationship with Indian Nations. It is an era based upon mutual understanding and respect for the sovereign obligations of the Tribal Nations to their peoples, and for the same obligations of the State of Montana to serve all state citizens, including those on reservations.
    [Show full text]
  • Governor Brian Schweitzer Clean & Green Energy Property Tax Incentives for Renewable Energy, Kew Technologv Encrgv & Clean Coal Energv
    Governor Brian Schweitzer Clean & Green Energy Property Tax Incentives for Renewable Energy, Kew Technologv Encrgv & Clean Coal Energv By developing our energy resources and providing incentives so that Suture development utilizes new technologies and produces clean & green energy, these incentives will allow !Montana to play an importailt role on three levels: o Internationally - help address the challenges of global climate change o Nation,illq - help the nation achie~eenerg) independence, especially related to liquid fuels o In Montana - help create econornic growth and jobs in the areas of the state which ha\ e seen econon~icdislocatioii for decades These property tax incentives are targeted completel> tcward new clean & green energy production and its movement to market, as well as the capturing and sequestering of C03. The pro-jects must be built with prevailing wage rates. Tax incentives support the development of ne~v,clean & green: o -1 ransillission lines, equipment & converter stations (including the 2- ?rid \. ersion) o C02 seclucstration pipelines o Liquid fuel pipelines o Electrical poiher plants o Liquid fuel plants from coal o Coal gasification plants o Cellulosic (or other non-foodstufi) ethanol & biodiesel file1 plants . o I','I )mass & biogas energy plants o Geothermal po~fer plants o Solar power plants o Wind power (receives help via transmissioii line tax incentives) All parts or the bill are needed -- a fully integrated approach to new & clean energy development is essential: o No investment in generation/liquid fuel plants can occur without transrliission lines and pipelines to nloTre proiluct. o No investment in transmission lines or pipelines can occur unless the energy is there from the gcncratingiliijuid fuel plants.
    [Show full text]
  • Protecting the Crown: a Century of Resource Management in Glacier National Park
    Protecting the Crown A Century of Resource Management in Glacier National Park Rocky Mountains Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Unit (RM-CESU) RM-CESU Cooperative Agreement H2380040001 (WASO) RM-CESU Task Agreement J1434080053 Theodore Catton, Principal Investigator University of Montana Department of History Missoula, Montana 59812 Diane Krahe, Researcher University of Montana Department of History Missoula, Montana 59812 Deirdre K. Shaw NPS Key Official and Curator Glacier National Park West Glacier, Montana 59936 June 2011 Table of Contents List of Maps and Photographs v Introduction: Protecting the Crown 1 Chapter 1: A Homeland and a Frontier 5 Chapter 2: A Reservoir of Nature 23 Chapter 3: A Complete Sanctuary 57 Chapter 4: A Vignette of Primitive America 103 Chapter 5: A Sustainable Ecosystem 179 Conclusion: Preserving Different Natures 245 Bibliography 249 Index 261 List of Maps and Photographs MAPS Glacier National Park 22 Threats to Glacier National Park 168 PHOTOGRAPHS Cover - hikers going to Grinnell Glacier, 1930s, HPC 001581 Introduction – Three buses on Going-to-the-Sun Road, 1937, GNPA 11829 1 1.1 Two Cultural Legacies – McDonald family, GNPA 64 5 1.2 Indian Use and Occupancy – unidentified couple by lake, GNPA 24 7 1.3 Scientific Exploration – George B. Grinnell, Web 12 1.4 New Forms of Resource Use – group with stringer of fish, GNPA 551 14 2.1 A Foundation in Law – ranger at check station, GNPA 2874 23 2.2 An Emphasis on Law Enforcement – two park employees on hotel porch, 1915 HPC 001037 25 2.3 Stocking the Park – men with dead mountain lions, GNPA 9199 31 2.4 Balancing Preservation and Use – road-building contractors, 1924, GNPA 304 40 2.5 Forest Protection – Half Moon Fire, 1929, GNPA 11818 45 2.6 Properties on Lake McDonald – cabin in Apgar, Web 54 3.1 A Background of Construction – gas shovel, GTSR, 1937, GNPA 11647 57 3.2 Wildlife Studies in the 1930s – George M.
    [Show full text]
  • The Constitutional Amendment to Counter Political Corruption and the Corporate Hijacking of the Constitution by Move to Amend
    The We the People Amendment: The Constitutional Amendment to Counter Political Corruption and the Corporate Hijacking of the Constitution by Move To Amend January, 2021 Executive Summary ● Corruption is the fundamental problem of American politics and government. Its most dangerous forms are excessive and undisclosed election spending and corporate constitutional rights (CCRs). This background paper focuses on CCRs. ● Corporations do not need constitutional rights to conduct business and granting them such rights is unsupported by logic, history, or law. ● CCRs harm We the People because they supersede laws passed by the People's representatives, causing harm to public health and safety, workplace safety, the environment, and democracy itself. ● The only non-violent method for addressing CCRs is a constitutional amendment. ● The We the People Amendment is the only constitutional amendment presently introduced in the current Congress that addresses both money as speech and CCRs. ● The We the People Amendment has considerable public support ● Concerns regarding harmful consequences of an amendment such as the We the People Amendment are unfounded. 1. Introduction Corruption is the fundamental problem of American politics and government. "Corruption" "refers to excessive private interests in the public sphere; an act is corrupt when private interests trump public ones in the exercise of public power..."1 The two most basic, pervasive, and dangerous forms of corruption are: (1) the excessive amount of money-especially undisclosed money-in elections and politics and its corrosive and corrupting effects on public policy and public confidence in our system of governance, and (2) purported federal constitutional rights that were judicially created for corporations (and other artificial entities ).
    [Show full text]
  • Participation
    PARTICIPATION A LOOK BACK AT 2007 Hinckley Institute Holds 2000th Hinckley Forum “OUR YOUNG, BEST MINDS MUST BE ENCOURAGED TO ENTER POLITICS.” Robert H. Hinckley 2 In This Issue Dr. J.D. Williams Page 3 Hinckley News Page 4 Internship Programs Page 8 Outstanding Interns Page 16 Scholarships Page 18 PARTICIPATION Hinckley Forums Page 20 Alumni Spotlights Page 25 Hinckley Staff Page 26 Donors Page 28 Hinckley Institute Holds 2000th Hinckley Forum Since 1965, the Hinckley Institute has held more than 2,000 Hinckley Forums (previously known as “Coffee & Politics”) featuring local, national, and international political leaders. Hinckley Forums provide University of Utah students and the surrounding community intimate access to and interaction with our nation’s leaders. Under the direction of Hinck- ley Institute assistant director Jayne Nelson, the Hinckley Institute hosts 65-75 forums each year in the newly renovated Hinckley Caucus Room. Partnerships with supporting Univer- sity of Utah colleges and departments, local radio and news stations, our generous donors, and the Sam Rich Program in International Politics ensure the continued success of the Hinckley Forums program. University of Utah students can now receive credit for attend- ing Hinckley Forums by enrolling in the Political Forum Series course (Political Science 3910). All Hinckley Forums are free and open to the public. For a detailed listing of 2007 Hinckley Forums, refer to pages 20 – 24. Past Hinckley Forum Guests Prince Turki Al-Faisal Archibald Cox Edward Kennedy Frank Moss Karl Rove Al Saud Russ Feingold William Lawrence Ralph Nader Larry Sabato Norman Bangerter Gerald Ford Michael Leavitt Richard Neustadt Brian Schweitzer Robert Bennett Jake Garn Richard Lugar Dallin H.
    [Show full text]
  • Litigation Department of the Year Competition
    americanlawyer.com JANUARY 2010 SPECIAL ISSUE THIS IS Our FIFTH BIEnnIAL Litigation Department of the Year competition. It has be- come a cliché to note that we’ve never had a tougher time picking finalists and winners from the scores of submissions. Nevertheless, it’s true. The last two years have been a time of unprec- edented upheaval for American businesses—and for the lawyers who serve them. To quote a part- ner from one of our finalist firms, the economic meltdown resulted not just in litigation, but in conflagration. The firms we chose in the overall contest and in the three practice area competi- tions—product liability, labor and employment, and intellectual property—didn’t just survive this trial by fire. They were forged into stronger, faster, smarter litigation departments. As before, we invited every firm in The Am Law 200 to report on litigation activities in a 19- month period, this time January 1, 2008–July 31, 2009. Every submission was read by at least three American Lawyer journalists. We vetted the strongest entries with calls to clients and op- posing counsel. Panels of reporters and editors picked finalists in each category and invited those firms to our offices in New York to plead their cases. At the end, we arrived at the results that follow: four winners, 12 runners-up, and 24 honorable mentions. Congratulations to all of them. —ALISON FRANKEL GIBSON DUNN Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher Game Changers When other firms and conventional strategies come up short, By David Bario clients in deep trouble turn to Gibson Dunn for fresh, aggressive thinking and innovative rescues.
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court Inc
    The New York Times March 16, 2008 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/16/magazine/16supreme- t.html?_r=1&ref=magazine&oref=slogin Supreme Court Inc. How the nation’s highest court became increasingly receptive to the arguments of American business. By JEFFREY ROSEN I. The headquarters of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, located across from Lafayette Park in Washington, is a limestone structure that looks almost as majestic as the Supreme Court. The similarity is no coincidence: both buildings were designed by the same architect, Cass Gilbert. Lately, however, the affinities between the court and the chamber, a lavishly financed business-advocacy organization, seem to be more than just architectural. The Supreme Court term that ended last June was, by all measures, exceptionally good for American business. The chamber’s litigation center filed briefs in 15 cases and its side won in 13 of them — the highest percentage of victories in the center’s 30-year history. The current term, which ends this summer, has also been shaping up nicely for business interests. I visited the chamber recently to talk with Robin Conrad, who heads the litigation effort, about her recent triumphs. Conrad, an appealing, soft-spoken woman, lives with her family on a horse farm in Maryland, where she rides with a fox-chasing club called the Howard County-Iron Bridge Hounds. Her office, playfully adorned by action figures of women like Xena the Warrior Princess and Hillary Rodham Clinton, has one of the most impressive views in Washington. “You can see the White House through the trees,” she said as we peered through a window overlooking the park.
    [Show full text]