Buckley v. Valeo, Political Disclosure and the First Amendment

Put differently, the reality is that disclosure’s constitutional status is unclear. The Supreme Court’s jurisprudential framework is often unpredictable. Even when the Court has been consistent in choosing a formal framework with which to approach disclosure laws, it has been inconsistent and unpredictable in applying that framework. To be sure, this issue takes on particular urgency in light of the importance both sides in the campaign finance debate attach to disclosure of campaign spending (however differently defined), and the existence of the Internet as a vehicle for immediate mass dissemination of information required to be reported. Accordingly, providing an overview of the Supreme Court’s disclosure jurisprudence under the First Amendment (as it has been applied in several contexts: candidate elections; candidate-specific issue advocacy; ballot initiative or referenda campaigns; and broadcast political advertising), this article then examines disclosure requirements applicable to lobbyists, foreign agents, government officials, and parties or witnesses in litigation or legislative investigations. It concludes by examining what common strains emerge from these disparate cases, and thus what new approaches are most likely to withstand constitutional review

Barriers to Participation

Despite the nation\u27s founding commitment to participatory democracy, many barriers to candidate and public participation in the electoral process are damaging the public\u27s confidence that our elections are fair and open to full participation by candidates and voters. The nominating processes created by the two major parties mainly serve the goals of party insiders and the more politically extreme factions, at the expense of competition and public confidence in the two-party system. At the same time, barriers to minor party and independent candidates-closed primaries, excessive early-voter registration requirements and complicated state primary and general ballot access requirements-operate to foreclose the possibility of a meaningful multiparty system. This Article will evaluate these and other legal and political barriers, and discuss the cost that such practices impose upon the nation\u27s civic life

Blessed to Build God's Kingdom: The Blessing of Abraham (Gen. 12:1-3) in Light of the Primeval History

Through a macro-syntactic analysis and a word study, this thesis has demonstrated that the root BRK (blessing), throughout the Primeval History and the calling/blessing of Abraham (Gen. 12:1-3), is consistently related to the Kingdom of God. The undergirding presence of the Kingdom of God makes the root BRK intelligible. Gen. 1:26-28 demonstrates that the purpose of creating and blessing (BRK) mankind was for mankind to rule as God’s representatives on the earth, and that it is the BRK of God that gives mankind the ability/capability to rightly rule on behalf of God. This thesis has defined the root BRK, based upon an analysis of its uses in the Primeval History and the calling/blessing of Abraham (Gen. 12:1-3), in the following way: The BRK of God provides the recipient with life-giving power and potency. As the term applies more specifically to humans, while incorporating life-giving power and potency, the BRK of God provides the recipient (i.e. one who bends the knee in recognition of the Lordship of God) with the ability/capability to rule rightly, as God’s representatives – to rule in a non-coercive, non-tyrannical way – for the express purpose of building/extending God’s Kingdom – a Kingdom that is meant to encompass all the families of the earth