DOCSLIB.ORG

The Corruption Disruption Manual

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Corruption Disruption Manual THE CORRUPTION DISRUPTION MANUAL Your Guide To Terminating Any Corrupt Person, Organization or Company 100% Legally Draft Revision 2.4 1 Table of Contents THE CORRUPTION DISRUPTION MANUAL......................................................................................1 HOW THE PUBLIC IS ENDING POLITICAL CORRUPTION FOREVER..........................................4 YOU OWE IT TO YOURSELF AND THE NATION TO TAKE THEM DOWN!................................17 HOW TO WRITE UP THE DOSSIER ON EACH CROOK..................................................................19 NEW SOFTWARE REVEALED THAT EXPOSES CROOKS IN PUBLIC OFFICE...........................25 HOW TO USE 'THE STREISAND EFFECT' TO SHUT DOWN BAD GUYS....................................34 WHEN THE SILICON VALLEY FRAT CARTEL TRIED TO BURY OUTSIDERS, THEY DISCOVERED THAT THEY WERE SEEDS........................................................................................38 Valley of the dolts................................................................................................................................43 ANOTHER REASON TO TAKE DOWN THE OLIGARCHS..............................................................49 FORCING THE MEDIA TO HELP YOU...............................................................................................52 The Techtopus: How Silicon Valley's most celebrated CEOs conspired to drive down 100,000 tech engineers' wages..................................................................................................................................60 THE NIGHTMARE THAT SILICON VALLEY OLIGARCHS CREATED..........................................73 LAWS YOU NEED TO FORCE YOUR POLITICAL REPRESENTATIVES TO MAKE....................78 HOW TO CONDUCT A CITIZENS ARREST OF A CORRUPT CROOK INCLUDING OLIGARCHS ..................................................................................................................................................................86 REFERENCES AND SELF-EDUCATION LINKS:...............................................................................93 THE EXAMPLE CASE.........................................................................................................................110 2 The methods, tactics and procedures listed herein are intended to convey totally legal ways to expose, terminate and cause the arrest of any target. Do not cross the legal line when you undertake these actions. Use your best judgment. This is a wikipedia-style document produced by the internet. 3 HOW THE PUBLIC IS ENDING POLITICAL CORRUPTION FOREVER This is about powerful and greedy people abusing the public system in order to manipulate TRILLIONS of government treasury and stock market dollars into their own pockets. They lie, cheat, bribe, steal, attack, and even kill, in order to grab this money (provided from the pockets of the taxpayers). They create fake "political issues" in order to steer massive amounts of government money to "solutions" that they just happen to own the companies of. ("Follow the Money") They collude on cover-ups, cover-stories, pump-and-dumps, fake "Stimulus Funds" redirection and other illicit deeds. Famous politicians are a very big part of this crime. They are easy to spot via the tens of millions of dollars, in their personal bank accounts, which only appeared after they took office. They broke and separated America by promoting their fake causes, which divide the public, in order to benefit off of their exclusive stock market scams. In fact, if the, completely computer manipulated, stock market did not exist, political corruption in America would be reduced by 95%. One part of them is: The Silicon Valley Tech Cartel; an anti-trust violating organized-crime operation based on quid-pro-quo. They manipulated the Dept of Energy to only fund political favorites and to sabotage the competitors of those favorites in an epic violation of anti-trust and anti-racketeering laws. How YOU can use the public "Corruption Kill Box" to wipe out crooked politicians and their financiers: A Corruption Kill Box Procedure combines federal police investigations created by formal filed criminal referrals and Form 302 overview drafts, public class-action lawsuits, massive news media disclosure blasts, formal regulatory agency complaint filings, individual lawsuits against political and agency executives, documentary film production and distribution, the promotion and organization of Congressional hearings, crowd-sourced social media public forensics and open-source AI financial crimes tracking software. The procedure is an extinction-level event with a 100% success rate against corrupt entities. CKB's only work on the corrupt, so non corrupt parties are safe from it's effects. ANY member of the public can engage in these totally legal anti-corruption actions. Just do it! The most effective interdiction process for political corruption is now here. It is called "Citizen Forensics". It is the process of the crowd-sourced deep investigation of public officials, and their shills, followed by the global public exposure and shaming of their illicit deeds. Federal law enforcement groups will even help you do this because you, and they, both have a common goal: to take down crooks. Over the last decade, these procedures have been proven to work. This manual guides you through procedures that work totally, magnificently and effectively against evil people and scumbags! Taking Down Corrupt California Politicians, Dirty Government Agency Executives And Their Tech Oligarch Bosses 4 KEY TACTICS: • We identified potential targets • We developed an investigative theory • We chose the best investigative techniques • We examined issues unique to these proactive corruption investigations • We mitigated special considerations in public corruption investigations IDENTIFYING POTENTIAL TARGETS: • We asked law enforcement and government sources, including inspectors general, and contract compliance, Congress members and oversight personnel who they suspect • We asked citizens; business competitors or political rivals; disgruntled current or former employees; paid informants and cooperating defendants; individuals involved in the illegal activity who are seeking to limit or eliminate their criminal exposure by blowing the whistle on corrupt conduct • We read print, television, and internet media outlets for tips • We examined if each specific target may be identified via credible tips. Does source have a motive to lie? Is there corroboration? • We looked at transactions that were identified or appear suspect without specific targets and used those to identify the entities and individuals involved and make a preliminary assessment of the roles played by these individuals, such as decision makers, knowledgeable actors, unwitting participants, and knowledgeable but uninvolved potential witnesses. We always follow the money ‐ We determine who profited from the transaction and how ‐ Political corruption cases are always about the money! Use modern AI around-the-clock tracking software on the target and their family members to spot money laundering. Each corrupt politician and operative made a profit from their corrupt actions and those benefits can always be traced with modern forensic accounting and tracking AI. The recent leaks from CPA, VC, law firm and lobbyist records make it even easier. The hack-and-disclose foreign actor campaigns (ie: Supernova, Spectre, Solarwinds, etc.) have even added to those disclosures. WE DEVELOPED AN INVESTIGATIVE THEORY: • Theory gives direction to the investigation, but we stay flexible as new facts are leaked or exposed 5 • We make an initial assessment of whether the alleged corrupt conduct appears to be criminal, or whether it is civil or administrative in nature • We then identify the elements needed to prove the crimes • We then try to anticipate possible factual and legal issues and defenses and build our case to rebut or avoid them • We then identify corrupt officials in jurisdictional law enforcement and regulatory agencies who may be stopping investigations in order to protect a Senator or tech oligarch that pays them or promises them a career advance MAIN TYPES OF OUR INVESTIGATIONS: - Historical cases ‐ based on document analysis and witness interviews - Proactive/undercover cases ‐ running gamut from one day and one deal to elaborate and long‐running multi‐transaction and multi‐target operations CHOOSING THE BEST INVESTIGATIVE TECHNIQUES: • We determined which investigative tools to use depending on a variety of factors, including the nature of the alleged violations, the type of investigation our members are conducting, and the resources we had available • We used the normal progression from simple to complex, with information from initial steps leading to more advanced steps, such as search warrants and federally assisted wiretaps • We mix and match our methods as appropriate • Due to the hybrid public/private/citizen investigative team, an “insurance policy” encrypted file set is pre-distributed to journalists, lawyers and Congressional insiders to protect citizen team members NOTES ON SOME OF THE INVESTIGATIVE TECHNIQUES WE USE: • Public Source Information • Internet and media sources • Court filings, including criminal histories, divorces and other lawsuits, bankruptcy filings, and administrative proceedings before agencies such as the SEC, FTC, and insurance and banking regulators 6 • Leaks and hacks • Choicepoint, Autotrack, property records • Financial disclosure forms; Campaign contribution
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Rise and Impact of Fact-Checking in U.S. Campaigns by Amanda Wintersieck a Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment O
    The Rise and Impact of Fact-Checking in U.S. Campaigns by Amanda Wintersieck A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy Approved April 2015 by the Graduate Supervisory Committee: Kim Fridkin, Chair Mark Ramirez Patrick Kenney ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY May 2015 ABSTRACT Do fact-checks influence individuals' attitudes and evaluations of political candidates and campaign messages? This dissertation examines the influence of fact- checks on citizens' evaluations of political candidates. Using an original content analysis, I determine who conducts fact-checks of candidates for political office, who is being fact- checked, and how fact-checkers rate political candidates' level of truthfulness. Additionally, I employ three experiments to evaluate the impact of fact-checks source and message cues on voters' evaluations of candidates for political office. i DEDICATION To My Husband, Aza ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to express my sincerest thanks to the many individuals who helped me with this dissertation and throughout my graduate career. First, I would like to thank all the members of my committee, Professors Kim L. Fridkin, Patrick Kenney, and Mark D. Ramirez. I am especially grateful to my mentor and committee chair, Dr. Kim L. Fridkin. Your help and encouragement were invaluable during every stage of this dissertation and my graduate career. I would also like to thank my other committee members and mentors, Patrick Kenney and Mark D. Ramirez. Your academic and professional advice has significantly improved my abilities as a scholar. I am grateful to husband, Aza, for his tireless support and love throughout this project.
    [Show full text]
  • Limiting Political Contributions After Mccutcheon, Citizens United, and Speechnow Albert W
    Florida Law Review Volume 67 | Issue 2 Article 1 January 2016 Limiting Political Contributions After McCutcheon, Citizens United, and SpeechNow Albert W. Alschuler Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/flr Part of the Election Law Commons Recommended Citation Albert W. Alschuler, Limiting Political Contributions After McCutcheon, Citizens United, and SpeechNow, 67 Fla. L. Rev. 389 (2016). Available at: http://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/flr/vol67/iss2/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by UF Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Florida Law Review by an authorized administrator of UF Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Alschuler: Limiting Political Contributions After <i> McCutcheon</i>, <i>Cit LIMITING POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS AFTER MCCUTCHEON, CITIZENS UNITED, AND SPEECHNOW Albert W. Alschuler* Abstract There was something unreal about the opinions in McCutcheon v. FEC. These opinions examined a series of strategies for circumventing the limits on contributions to candidates imposed by federal election law, but they failed to notice that the limits were no longer breathing. The D.C. Circuit’s decision in SpeechNow.org v. FEC had created a far easier way to evade the limits than any of those the Supreme Court discussed. SpeechNow held all limits on contributions to super PACs unconstitutional. This Article argues that the D.C. Circuit erred; Citizens United v. FEC did not require unleashing super PAC contributions. The Article also considers what can be said for and against a bumper sticker’s declarations that “MONEY IS NOT SPEECH!” and “CORPORATIONS ARE NOT PEOPLE!” It proposes a framework for evaluating the constitutionality of campaign-finance regulations that differs from the one currently employed by the Supreme Court.
    [Show full text]
  • The Fourteen-Billion-Dollar Election Emerging Campaign Finance Trends and Their Impact on the 2020 Presidential Race and Beyond
    12 The Fourteen-Billion-Dollar Election Emerging Campaign Finance Trends and their Impact on the 2020 Presidential Race and Beyond Michael E. Toner and Karen E. Trainer The 2020 presidential and congressional election was the most expensive election in American history, shattering previous fundraising and spending records. Total spending on the 2020 election totaled an estimated $14 bil- lion, which was more than double the amount spent during the 2016 cycle and more than any previous election in U.S. history. 1 The historic 2020 spending tally was more than was spent in the previous two election cycles combined.2 Moreover, former Vice President Joseph Biden and Senator Kamala Harris made fundraising history in 2020 as their presidential campaign became the first campaign in history to raise over $1 billion in a single election cycle, with a total of $1.1 billion.3 For their part, President Trump and Vice Presi- dent Pence raised in excess of $700 million for their presidential campaign, more than double the amount that they raised in 2016.4 The record amount of money expended on the 2020 election was also fu- eled by a significant increase in spending by outside groups such as Super PACs as well as enhanced congressional candidate fundraising. Political party expenditures increased in 2020, but constituted a smaller share of total electoral spending. Of the $14 billion total, approximately $6.6 billion was spent in connection with the presidential race and $7.2 billion was expended at the congressional level.5 To put those spending amounts into perspective, the $7.2 billion tally at the congressional level nearly equals the GDP of Monaco.6 More than $1 billion of the $14 billion was spent for online advertising on platforms such as Facebook and Google.7 203 204 Michael E.
    [Show full text]
  • Removing Individual and Party Limits on Contributions to Presidential Campaigns
    Facing the Coordination Reality: Removing Individual and Party Limits on Contributions to Presidential Campaigns BY ZACHARY MORRISON* Since Citizens United, a new era of campaigning has emerged in which traditional campaign functions have been outsourced to candidate-centric outside groups. In the 2016 presidential election, ten campaigns had raised less money than their allied Super PACs and other outside groups. Federal election regulations that restrict coordination between these outside groups and campaigns are outdated and poorly enforced. American democracy is weakened by this unprecedented electoral activity because of decreased donor transparency, increased negativity without accountability, and voter confusion. This Note concludes, after examining outside group political activity in the 2012 and 2016 presidential cycles, that candidate-centric outside groups create the same risk of corruption as direct contributions to campaigns. Therefore, this Note proposes that proponents of stricter campaign finance regulation should consider removing limits on individual and political party contributions to presidential campaigns. Allowing individuals and parties to provide unlimited funds to campaigns would diminish the appeal of outside groups and increase the political pressure on campaigns to disavow their use. This realistic, if not pessimistic, proposal offers a simple legislative solution to some of the concerning elements of an increased reliance on outside groups, while * Farnsworth Note Competition Winner, 2019. J.D. Candidate 2019, Columbia Law School. The author thanks Professor Richard Briffault for not only his advice and guidance, but also his academic contributions to the subject that inspired this project. Special thanks to the editors and staff of the Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems for their invaluable feedback and tireless commitment to the process.
    [Show full text]
  • BEFORE the FEDERAL ELECTION Commissiol^^^;
    BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSIOl^^^; ^016OCT'g AUn CAMPAIGN LEGAL CENTER «"»/.• 06 1411 K Street, NW—Suite 1400 Washington, DC 20005 .tf (202,7,6..200 o S m CATHERINE HINCKLEY KELLEY ^ o o -m ^^za:o 1411K Street, NW, Suite 1400 ';oo 1, rn Washington, DC 20005 JTJ CS 1,'.!m (202)736-2200 <'S-r S rm s ooo Z:;H V. MURNo. ?r—2 _1 o CORRECT THE RECORD Elizabeth Cohen, Treasurer 455 Massachusetts Avenue, NW—Suite 600 Washington, DC 20001 HILLARY FOR AMERICA Jose H. Villareal, Treasurer P.O. Box 5256 NewYork, NY 10185-5256 COft^PLAlNT 1. This coihplaint is filed pursuant to 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(1) and is based on information providing reason to believe that Correct the Record (l.D. C00578997), a so-called "Carey" or "hybrid" committee,' has made, and Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign committee Hillary for America (l.D. C00575795) has accepted, up to $5.95 ' Pursuant to the stipulated order and consent judgment in Carey v. FEC, Civ. No. 11-259- RMC (D. D.C. 2011), political committees that provide notice to the Commission may establish one "non-contribution" bank account that accepts contributions in unlimited amounts from individuals, corporations, labor organizations and other political conunittees that may be used only for independent expenditures and not for expenditures coordinated with or in-kind contributions to candidates (i.e., a "super PAC" account), and also a separate bank account subject to contribution limits and source prohibitions for making contributions to federal candidates. See Press Release, Fed.
    [Show full text]
  • Super Pacs and 501(C) Groups in the 2016 Election
    Super PACs and 501(c) Groups in the 2016 Election David B. Magleby* Brigham Young University Paper presented at the “State of the Parties: 2016 and Beyond”, Ray C. Bliss Institute of Applied Politics, University of Akron. November 9-10, 2017. *I would like to acknowledge the research assistance of Hyrum Clarke, Ben Forsgren, John Geilman, Jake Jensen, Jacob Nielson, Blake Ringer, Alena Smith, Wen Je (Fred) Tan, and Sam Williams all BYU undergraduates. Data made available by the Center for Responsive Politics was helpful as were two interviews with Robert Maguire, whose expertise in political nonprofits was informative. 1 Super PACs and 501(c) Groups in the 2067 Election David B. Magleby Brigham Young University In only a short period of time, Super PACs have come to be one of the most important parts of American electoral politics. They raise and spend large sums of money in competitive federal elections. They have become fully integrated teammates with candidates, party leaders, and interest groups. While initially they were most visible in paying for television advertising, by 2016 they expanded their scope by providing a wide variety of campaign services once thought to be funded by candidate campaign committees (campaign events) or party committees, (get-out-the-vote, voter registration, list development). Where does the money come from that funds Super PACs and other outside groups? While much of the attention on sources of funding for Super PACs was initially on corporations and unions, the reality has been that most of the funding for Super PACs has been individuals. Publicly traded corporations have been infrequent funders of Super PACs, while unions have been more active in using Super PACs.
    [Show full text]
  • Social Media and Democracy : the State of the Field, Prospects for Reform
    Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 170.106.33.19, on 26 Sep 2021 at 08:20:02, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/E79E2BBF03C18C3A56A5CC393698F117 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 170.106.33.19, on 26 Sep 2021 at 08:20:02, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/E79E2BBF03C18C3A56A5CC393698F117 Social Media and Democracy Over the last five years, widespread concern about the effects of social media on democracy has led to an explosion in research from different disciplines and corners of academia. This book is the first of its kind to take stock of this emerging multi-disciplinary field by synthesizing what we know, identifying what we do not know and obstacles to future research, and charting a course for the future inquiry. Chapters by leading scholars cover major topics – from disinformation to hate speech to political advertising – and situate recent developments in the context of key policy questions. In addition, the book canvasses existing reform proposals in order to address widely perceived threats that social media poses to democracy. This title is also available as Open Access on Cambridge Core. Nathaniel Persily is the James B. McClatchy Professor of Law at Stanford Law School and the Co-Director of the Stanford Cyber Policy Center and Stanford Project on Democracy and the Internet. His scholarship focuses on the law and technology of democracy.
    [Show full text]
  • Pacing a Punch: the Rise in Power of Super Pacs and the 2016 Election Kevin Coroneos
    Political Analysis Volume 16 Volume XVI (2014) Article 3 2015 PACing a Punch: The Rise in Power of Super PACs and the 2016 Election Kevin Coroneos Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.shu.edu/pa Part of the Political Science Commons Recommended Citation Coroneos, Kevin (2015) "PACing a Punch: The Rise in Power of Super PACs and the 2016 Election," Political Analysis: Vol. 16 , Article 3. Available at: https://scholarship.shu.edu/pa/vol16/iss1/3 PAQng a Punch; The Rise in Power of Super PACs and the 2016 Election Kevin Coroneos It is 2016, the height of the Presidential election, and no one escape the political ads that have taken up every second of the commercial breaks on television. The ads, however, are not just from the candidates themselves, but from other, interested organizations. After an ad officially endorsed by the Republican candidate another pro-Republican ad comes along, but this one is created by a group called American Crossroads. During the next break, the viewer notices an advertisement supporting the Affordable Care Act, but this ad is also from a mysterious source called Priorities USA.. With each commercial break, more and more political ads appear, either from the candidate or another source. Tired of watching the television due to all the ads, the viewer decides to browse social media and YouTube for a short period of time, but he notices the ads before the videos are also very political. It is an aspect of the election the public cannot escape—^an all-out attack of the advertisements.
    [Show full text]
  • The History of Undisclosed Spending in U.S. Elections & How 2012 Became the Dark Money Election
    Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy Volume 27 | Issue 2 Article 4 6-1-2013 The iH story of Undisclosed Spending in U.S. Elections & How 2012 Became the Dark Money Election Trevor Potter Bryson B. Morgan Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndjlepp Recommended Citation Trevor Potter & B. B. Morgan, The History of Undisclosed Spending in U.S. Elections & How 2012 Became the Dark Money Election, 27 Notre Dame J.L. Ethics & Pub. Pol'y 383 (2013). Available at: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndjlepp/vol27/iss2/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy at NDLScholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy by an authorized administrator of NDLScholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. \\jciprod01\productn\N\NDE\27-2\NDE204.txt unknown Seq: 1 9-MAY-13 12:30 ARTICLES THE HISTORY OF UNDISCLOSED SPENDING IN U.S. ELECTIONS & HOW 2012 BECAME THE “DARK MONEY” ELECTION TREVOR POTTER* & BRYSON B. MORGAN** I. INTRODUCTION An estimated $6 billion was spent on the 2012 federal elec- tions in the United States, with more than $3.14 billion spent by federal candidates,1 2.07 billion spent by national political party committees,2 and $1.03 billion spent by outside groups.3 These amounts represent a continuation of the rapid growth in spend- * Trevor Potter is a member in Caplin & Drysdale’s Washington, D.C. office, where he leads the firm’s Political Law Practice.
    [Show full text]
  • United States District Court Western District of Wisconsin
    Case: 3:20-cv-00385-wmc Document #: 48 Filed: 06/18/20 Page 1 of 29 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN DONALD J. TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT, INC., Plaintiff, v. NORTHLAND TELEVISION, LLC, d/b/a WJFW-NBC, Case No. 20-cv-00385-WMC Defendant and PRIORITIES USA ACTION, Intervenor Defendant. COMPLAINT Plaintiff, Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. (“plaintiff” or “the Trump Campaign”), for its Complaint against intervenor defendant, Priorities USA Action (“PUSA”), alleges as follows: INTRODUCTION AND NATURE OF THE CASE 1. In the landmark case of New York Times v. Sullivan, which applied the First Amendment to common law defamation, the U.S. Supreme Court explained: “profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide- open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.” New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270 (1964). The First Amendment is intended to protect and nurture such wide-open exchange and public debate. It has its limits, however, as that same year, the Supreme Court explained that the First Amendment provides no haven for “known lies”: Case: 3:20-cv-00385-wmc Document #: 48 Filed: 06/18/20 Page 2 of 29 “That speech is used as a tool for political ends does not automatically bring it under the protective mantle of the Constitution. For the use of the known lie as a tool is at once at odds with the premises of democratic government and with the orderly manner in which economic, social, or political change is to be effected.
    [Show full text]
  • Appearance of Corruption": Citizen Attitudes and Behavior in 2012
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by The Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law Catholic University Law Review Volume 63 Issue 4 Summer 2014 Article 4 10-17-2014 Financing Elections and "Appearance of Corruption": Citizen Attitudes and Behavior in 2012 Molly J. Walker Wilson Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.edu/lawreview Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, Election Law Commons, and the First Amendment Commons Recommended Citation Molly J. Walker Wilson, Financing Elections and "Appearance of Corruption": Citizen Attitudes and Behavior in 2012, 63 Cath. U. L. Rev. 953 (2014). Available at: https://scholarship.law.edu/lawreview/vol63/iss4/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by CUA Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Catholic University Law Review by an authorized editor of CUA Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FINANCING ELECTIONS AND “APPEARANCE OF CORRUPTION”: CITIZEN ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIOR IN 2012 Molly J. Walker Wilson+ I. A HISTORY OF CAMPAIGN FINANCE JURISPRUDENCE AND THE “APPEARANCE OF CORRUPTION” .......................................................... 959 A. Pre-Citizens United ............................................................................ 960 B. Citizens United ................................................................................... 965 C. The Supreme Court Reaffirms Citizens United .................................
    [Show full text]
  • © Copyright, Princeton University Press
    © Copyright, Princeton University Press. © Copyright, Princeton University Press. John Sides and Lynn Vavreck The Gamble Choice and Chance in the 2012 Presidential Election High Rollers Princeton University Press Princeton and oxford © Copyright, Princeton University Press. High Rollers is a preliminary version of chapter 5 in The Gamble, by John Sides and Lynn Vavreck, to be published by Princeton University Press in August 2013. Copyright © 2013 by Princeton University Press Published by Princeton University Press, 41 William Street, Princeton, New Jersey 08540 In the United Kingdom: Princeton University Press, 6 Oxford Street, Woodstock, Oxfordshire OX20 1TW press.princeton.edu All Rights Reserved eISBN 978-1-4008-4571-2 © Copyright, Princeton University Press. t he Gamble Introduction Almost twice as many jobs were added to the U.S. economy in 2011 than in 2010, but roughly thirteen million Americans remained out of work. The economy was growing, but the global financial crisis still cast a long shadow. Would even modest economic growth be enough to usher the incumbent president back into office? Barack Obama was betting on it. Meanwhile, an already volatile Republican nominating process was revving up as the Iowa caucus approached on January 3. Could the party come to embrace an also- ran from the 2008 election who had previously supported abortion rights, gay rights, and a government- led overhaul of health care? Mitt Romney was betting on it. Once the general election was under way, voters across America would place their own bet: which of these candidates would help restore the country’s prosperity? The Gamble: Choice and Chance in the 2012 Presidential Elec- tion is about these bets.
    [Show full text]