How dark is too dark?
That is just one of the legal and political questions asked by commentators, lawyers and legal scholars as they examine the shifting landscape
of campaign finance law.
“Dark money” is a term that has come to exemplify a range of discomfort felt by many Americans about a crucial part of our Republic. It represents a funding strategy that allows contributors to remain nameless
even as the face of American elections changes.
Our stories this month show that the balancing of free speech and transparent elections is not merely a national dialogue, but an Arizona one as
well. A recent case at the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona
has substantial implications for our state’s regime of election finance.
Two of our authors urge the Legislature to act to restore clarity.
Finally, we have heard much about the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens
United opinion. It’s probably fair to say that thousands of pages have
been written on the topic. But hidden in the case’s foundations is a
jurisprudence that stretches back many Court Terms. Our “Law’s
Attic” article explains that history—one that relied mightily on the
positions of Arizona’s own Justice William Rehnquist.
No doubt, there is much more to say on these important topics.
If you have thoughts on how we should cover them, write to us at
The Arizona Legislature
Should Restore Clarity
to Our Campaign
BY JOSEPH KANEFIELD
IN THIS ISSUE:
32Arizona Campaign Finance Laws Are Teetering
BY DAVID J. CANTELME
36Law’s Attic: The Conservative vs. the Corporatist: Justice Rehnquist and “Corporate Speech” Rights
BY JEFF CLEMENTS