Cutting Through the Gordian Knot: It’s Time to Revise Rule 17d-1 Under the Investment Company Act of 1940

This article reviews the legislative and administrative history of Section 17(d) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 and Rule 17d-1 under that Section, which broadly prohibit any affiliated person or principal underwriter of a mutual fund or other registered investment company (a “Fund”) or any affiliated person of such a person or underwriter, from participating in a joint transaction with the Fund unless an application regarding the transaction has been filed with and approved by the SEC. The author maintains that the Rule’s scope is far broader than what is necessary to achieve the statutory purpose of protecting Funds and their shareholders from being unfairly taken advantage of by Fund insiders. The article proposes that the SEC amend to the Rule to allow transactions with affiliated persons who are not connected with management of the Fund, relying on a Fund’s independent directors to protect the interests of the Fund and its shareholders

The Analytical Compass: A Study of State Voter Identification Requirements and Combatting Election Fraud

Catholic Law\u27s Student Scholars Series presented its first installment on January 27 with a presentation by Abby DiOrio (3L). Her scholarship, entitled The Analytical Compass: A Study of State Voter Identification Requirements and Combatting Election Fraud, examined laws governing photo-ID mandates and the presence of additional statutes encumbering access to the ballot box. Troy McCurry, Esq., Director of Government Relations Compliance at The Pew Charitable Trusts, provided the response to DiOrio\u27s presentation. In her abstract, DiOrio analyzes states in the 5th and 9th Circuit and their efforts to prevent voter fraud. The Note emphasizes the exponential gravity of voter laws as elections become increasingly polarized, narrow, and controversial. With this magnitude in mind, “The Analytical Compass,” synthesizes key traits: (1) photo identification stringency, (2) additional voting obstacles, and (3) election-related convictions. The Analytical Compass reflects a linear regression, modeling a strong relation between stringent ID requirements and presence of other regulatory obstacles. However, it also depicts a consistent ratio of election fraud convictions, despite the varying severity of each state law. This suggests that harsher voting laws are not necessarily more successful in preventing voter fraud. The Columbus School of Law Student Scholars Series was instituted in 2009 to recognize notable legal scholarship produced by members of the student body during the academic year and to foster the skills associated with presenting and defending that scholarship in a professional conference-style setting

Constitutional Theory and the Problem of Disagreement

For decades, constitutional theory has been haunted by the problem of disagreement: the reality that we are deeply divided on fundamental questions of justice and the good society. Theorists have generally responded to the problem of disagreement in one of two ways. One approach minimizes the extent to which constitutional theories rely on controversial moral premises and instead grounds constitutional theories in widely endorsed social practices. The other generally discards any social practices that reflect disagreement with the controversial moral views that the theorist holds.Neither approach is sound. Constitutional theory requires both controversial moral claims and attention to social practices; it requires both ideal and practical constitutional theory. Indeed, we can see how to address the seemingly modern problem of disagreement by attending to the work of an ancient constitutional theorist: Cicero. Despite being the subject of intense scholarly interest outside of the legal academy over the last few decades, Cicero’s work has been almost entirely overlooked by American constitutional theorists. But if we examine, refine, and revise his arguments about ideal and practical constitutional theory, we will find that the two major approaches to the problem of disagreement proposed by American constitutional theorists are mistaken.Because constitutional theory necessarily makes strong moral claims, it is not well-suited to mitigating the effects of disagreement, even as it must take into account non-ideal social practices. Rather, the task of ameliorating the problems stemming from disagreement falls to constitutional design: the enterprise of constructing a constitution that can channel disagreements productively, forge consensus, and produce a stable constitutional order. The failure to distinguish between constitutional theory and constitutional design when addressing the problem of disagreement has led to deep confusion within constitutional theory. Mitigating the problem of disagreement is a task of constitutional design, and whether that task succeeds depends on our role acting within that design as citizens, not as theorists

Fight for Your Right (to Repair)

In his article, Sam Bonfiglio brings to light how the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) in its current iteration implicates consumer’s right to repair their purchased devices. He argues that Section 1201 of the DMCA unfairly impedes upon both a consumer’s right to choose their desired service location as well as their right to attempt service themselves. He argues these restrictions ultimately force consumers to use a manufacturer’s licensed channel of service, effectively granting them a monopoly. The article advocates for the reintroduction of the Freedom to Repair Act to amend the DMCA to commercialize the market for these services while simultaneously protecting manufacturer’s interests