Document Type

Article

Source Publication Title

Journal of Legal Analysis

First Page

375

Last Page

438

DOI

http://doi.org/10.1093/jla/law006

Abstract

The Supreme Court says that campaign finance regulations are unconstitutional unless they target “quid pro quo” corruption or its appearance. To test those appearances, we fielded two studies. First, in a highly realistic simulation, three grand juries deliberated on charges that a campaign spender bribed a Congressperson. Second, 1271 representative online respondents considered whether to convict, with five variables manipulated randomly. In both studies, jurors found quid pro quo corruption for behaviors they believed to be common. This research suggests that Supreme Court decisions were wrongly decided, and that Congress and the states have greater authority to regulate campaign finance. Prosecutions for bribery raise serious problems for the First Amendment, due process, and separation of powers. Safe harbors may be a solution.

Disciplines

Anthropology | Social and Behavioral Sciences | Sociology

Publication Date

5-23-2016

Language

English

Download

Share

COinS