Caught in the Act but not Punished: on Elite Rule of Law and Deterrence

Most literature on criminal deterrence in law, economics, and criminology assumes that people who are caught for a crime will be punished. The literature focuses on how the size of sanctions and probability of being caught affect criminal behavior. However, in many countries entire groups of people are “above the law” in the sense that they are able to evade punishment even if caught violating the law. In this paper we argue that both the perceived probability of being punished if caught and the cultural acceptance of elites evading punishment are important parts of theorizing about deterrence, particularly about corruption among political elites. Looking at data on parking violations among diplomats in New York City 1997–2002, we explore how diplomats from different rule-of-law cultures respond to sudden legal immunity. The empirical observations provide clear evidence of both the stickiness and the gradual weakening of cultural constraints

Fears over the impact of Citizens United may be misplaced

"Doing a Systematic Review: A Student’s Guide." Angela The Supreme Court ruling in the 2010 case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, has generated one of the largest public outcries of any court decision in recent memory. Perhaps the most pervasive criticism of the case argues that it unleashed a deluge of big money into elections, distorting the political system to favor corporations. However, the actual effect on elections is unclear. Douglas Spencer and Abby K. Wood compare state-level data to test the impact of the decision and find that while spending increased in affected states, the actual ramifications of the ruling are much smaller than many believe

Citizens United, States Divided: An Empirical Analysis of Independent Political Spending

What effect has Citizens United v. FEC had on independent spending in American politics? Previous attempts to answer this question have focused solely on federal elections, where there is no baseline for comparing changes in spending behavior. We overcome this limitation by examining the effects of Citizens United as a natural experiment on the states. Before Citizens United, about half of the states banned corporate independent expenditures and thus were “treated” by the Supreme Court’s decision, which invalidated these state laws. We rely on recently released state-level data to compare spending in “treated” states to spending in the “control” states, which have never banned corporate or union independent expenditures. We find that, while independent expenditures increased in both treated and control states between 2006 and 2010, the increase was more than twice as large in the treated states, and nearly all of the new money was funneled through nonprofit organizations and political committees where weak disclosure laws and practices protected the anonymity of the spenders. Finally, we observe that the increase in spending after Citizens United was not the product of fewer, larger expenditures as many scholars and pundits predicted, and we note that people were just as likely to make smaller expenditures (less than $400) after Citizens United as they were before. This finding is particularly striking because it cuts against the conventional wisdom of spending behavior and also challenges the logic of those who disagree with the most controversial element of the Citizens United decision—the rejection of political equality as a valid state interest

A SMASHing approach for developing staff and student digital capabilities within a community of practice

SMASH is a student-led partnership which considers how social media could be used to enhance learning and teaching. Mentored by their tutor, members of the team identified three key areas where social media may be utilised: within learning activities, as a means of organising learning and as a way of showcasing learning. The three strands of this framework have provided a focus to develop a range of resources and the foundation for a digital toolkit. This case study reflects upon not just the outputs developed thus far, but also on the experience, the learning gained and the sense of belonging and identify as a result of being part of this community of practice

In the Shadows of Sunlight: The Effects of Transparency on State Political Campaigns

In recent years, the courts have invalidated a variety of campaign finance laws while simultaneously upholding disclosure requirements. Courts view disclosure as a less-restrictive means to root out corruption while critics claim that disclosure chills speech and deters political participation. Using individual-level contribution data from state elections between 2000 and 2008, we find that the speech-chilling effects of disclosure are negligible. On average, less than one donor per candidate is likely to stop contributing when the public visibility of campaign contributions increases. Moreover, we do not observe heterogeneous effects for small donors or ideological outliers despite an assumption in First Amendment jurisprudence that these donors are disproportionately affected by campaign finance regulations. In short, the argument that disclosure chills speech is not strongly supported by the data

Citizens United, States Divided: An Empirical Analysis of Independent Political Spending

What effect has Citizens United v. FEC had on independent spending in American politics? Previous attempts to answer this question have focused solely on federal elections, where there is no baseline for comparing changes in spending behavior. We overcome this limitation by examining the effects of Citizens United as a natural experiment on the states. Before Citizens United, about half of the states banned corporate independent expenditures and thus were “treated” by the Supreme Court’s decision, which invalidated these state laws. We rely on recently released state-level data to compare spending in “treated” states to spending in the “control” states, which have never banned corporate or union independent expenditures. We find that, while independent expenditures increased in both treated and control states between 2006 and 2010, the increase was more than twice as large in the treated states, and nearly all of the new money was funneled through nonprofit organizations and political committees where weak disclosure laws and practices protected the anonymity of the spenders. Finally, we observe that the increase in spending after Citizens United was not the product of fewer, larger expenditures as many scholars and pundits predicted, and we note that people were just as likely to make smaller expenditures (less than $400) after Citizens United as they were before. This finding is particularly striking because it cuts against the conventional wisdom of spending behavior and also challenges the logic of those who disagree with the most controversial element of the Citizens United decision—the rejection of political equality as a valid state interest

Maximizing Transit and Transit-centered Growth to Benefit All

This paper includes a national scan of transit-oriented development (TOD) activities across the United States. The goal is to assess the level of activity and momentum around TOD, with special attention to the role that funders are playing to influence outcomes that are benefiting low- and moderate-income people