1
00:00:04,620 --> 00:00:09,420
Hello, I'm Suhasini Vincent,
Associate Professor of Legal English

2
00:00:09,620 --> 00:00:13,540
at the University of Paris 2,
Panthéon Assas, and in this week's

3
00:00:13,740 --> 00:00:17,600
course we shall study how presidential
election campaigns are financed

4
00:00:17,800 --> 00:00:18,780
in the United States.

5
00:00:19,420 --> 00:00:22,940
Here are some interesting comparative
figures of the United States and

6
00:00:23,140 --> 00:00:23,900
France.

7
00:00:24,240 --> 00:00:30,540
$5.7 billion was spent on campaigning
in the 2020 United States presidential

8
00:00:30,740 --> 00:00:31,500
election.

9
00:00:31,720 --> 00:00:37,620
By contrast, 74 million euros were
spent during the 2017 French

10
00:00:37,820 --> 00:00:38,880
presidential campaigns.

11
00:00:39,820 --> 00:00:44,040
The massive spending in American
elections is due to a series of

12
00:00:44,240 --> 00:00:48,540
Supreme Court decisions that struck
down limits on campaign finance

13
00:00:48,740 --> 00:00:53,320
as contrary to the First Amendment's
protection of freedom of expression.

14
00:00:54,620 --> 00:00:59,780
In the present status quo of new
mass media, significant sums of

15
00:00:59,980 --> 00:01:02,800
money have been allocated for election
campaigns.

16
00:01:03,520 --> 00:01:07,580
Looking back, it is interesting
to note that in the 1970s,

17
00:01:07,780 --> 00:01:11,960
Congress placed various limits
on campaign donations and spending.

18
00:01:12,640 --> 00:01:17,240
Even earlier, in 1907,
there were bans on campaign donations

19
00:01:17,440 --> 00:01:19,880
from corporations and labour unions.

20
00:01:20,360 --> 00:01:23,300
It was a Supreme Court case,
Buckley v.

21
00:01:23,540 --> 00:01:29,240
Valio, in 1976, that set the current
trend of unrestricted financing

22
00:01:29,440 --> 00:01:30,460
of election campaigns.

23
00:01:31,200 --> 00:01:35,980
In this decision, the court ruled
that limits on campaign expenditures

24
00:01:36,180 --> 00:01:40,240
are unconstitutional because they
reduce free expression.

25
00:01:41,100 --> 00:01:45,180
Limits on campaign contributions,
on the other hand, were found to

26
00:01:45,380 --> 00:01:49,480
be constitutional because the state
has a compelling interest,

27
00:01:49,680 --> 00:01:53,400
I quote, in the prevention of
corruption or the appearance of

28
00:01:53,600 --> 00:01:55,300
corruption, I close quotes.

29
00:01:55,680 --> 00:02:00,100
So, pursuant to the Buckley decision,
only the prevention of corruption

30
00:02:00,300 --> 00:02:03,500
could justify limits on campaign
contributions.

31
00:02:04,160 --> 00:02:07,940
This permitted unrestricted
self-funding of campaigns.

32
00:02:08,660 --> 00:02:11,560
The judges argued, I quote once
again from the case,

33
00:02:12,100 --> 00:02:16,880
the candidate's use of personal
funds reduces the candidate's

34
00:02:17,080 --> 00:02:21,960
dependence on outside contributions
and thereby counteracts coercive

35
00:02:22,160 --> 00:02:23,400
pressures, close quotes.

36
00:02:23,600 --> 00:02:28,420
This is how wealthy individuals
such as Michael Bloomberg and Donald

37
00:02:28,620 --> 00:02:33,040
Trump were able to run well-funded
campaigns with limited public

38
00:02:33,240 --> 00:02:34,000
contributions.

39
00:02:34,580 --> 00:02:35,340
Buckley v.

40
00:02:35,540 --> 00:02:41,020
Valio that placed limits on campaign
contributions and directly restricted

41
00:02:41,220 --> 00:02:44,060
campaign expenditures by most
candidates.

42
00:02:44,600 --> 00:02:49,100
But these limits were greatly weakened
by court cases in 2010,

43
00:02:49,560 --> 00:02:52,020
namely Citizens Union v.

44
00:02:52,220 --> 00:02:57,040
FEC in the Supreme Court and
SpeechNow.org v.

45
00:02:57,240 --> 00:02:59,820
FEC in the Court of Appeals for the D.C.

46
00:03:00,420 --> 00:03:01,180
Circuit.

47
00:03:01,720 --> 00:03:03,660
In Citizens United v.

48
00:03:03,860 --> 00:03:09,540
FEC 2010, the court found that
limits on independent expenditures

49
00:03:09,740 --> 00:03:13,840
and political campaigns,
that is expenditures by third parties

50
00:03:14,040 --> 00:03:18,580
unaffiliated with candidates,
are an unconstitutional violation

51
00:03:18,780 --> 00:03:19,820
of freedom of expression.

52
00:03:20,020 --> 00:03:25,620
So this means that corporations,
labor unions, non-profits and other

53
00:03:25,820 --> 00:03:30,680
organizations can now contribute
unlimited funds on political campaigns.

54
00:03:31,760 --> 00:03:33,860
In SpeechNow.org v.

55
00:03:34,060 --> 00:03:38,140
FEC, the court ruled that the
government cannot limit the size

56
00:03:38,340 --> 00:03:42,140
of donations or contributions to
groups, but there are no limits

57
00:03:42,340 --> 00:03:47,340
on the size of donations to independent
groups that can campaign for or

58
00:03:47,540 --> 00:03:48,320
against candidates.

59
00:03:48,520 --> 00:03:53,280
This has led to the creation of
independent expenditure committees,

60
00:03:53,800 --> 00:03:59,240
commonly known as super PACs,
which are organizations that can

61
00:03:59,440 --> 00:04:04,300
raise unlimited sums of money to
campaign for or against candidates,

62
00:04:04,780 --> 00:04:08,620
so long as there is no official
coordination with the candidates'

63
00:04:09,240 --> 00:04:10,000
campaigns.

64
00:04:10,200 --> 00:04:15,180
This is how wealthy Americans
contribute unlimited funds on political

65
00:04:15,380 --> 00:04:17,760
campaigns by donating to super PACs.

66
00:04:19,820 --> 00:04:24,400
Dark money in American political
campaigns thus came into being

67
00:04:24,600 --> 00:04:29,520
as some non-profit organizations
are not required to disclose their

68
00:04:29,720 --> 00:04:30,480
donors.

69
00:04:30,680 --> 00:04:34,700
The National Rifle Association,
for instance, which advocates for

70
00:04:34,900 --> 00:04:39,480
gun rights and the Planned Parenthood
Action Fund, which advocates for

71
00:04:39,680 --> 00:04:43,640
access to reproductive and sexual
health services, can thus avail

72
00:04:43,840 --> 00:04:48,840
of large amounts of money on campaigns
without being obliged to disclose

73
00:04:49,040 --> 00:04:50,640
where the money came from.

74
00:04:51,380 --> 00:04:55,020
Public financing is available to
presidential candidates in both

75
00:04:55,220 --> 00:04:57,820
the primary and general election stage.

76
00:04:58,440 --> 00:05:02,980
This imposes spending limits on
the candidates and a prohibition

77
00:05:03,180 --> 00:05:06,400
on the use of the candidate's own
personal funds.

78
00:05:07,380 --> 00:05:11,160
Former President Barack Obama was
the first candidate to decline

79
00:05:11,360 --> 00:05:16,600
public financing in the 2008 Democratic
primaries and general election.

80
00:05:17,240 --> 00:05:22,020
Many candidates have avoided public
funding in favor of private

81
00:05:22,220 --> 00:05:27,020
contributions and its accompanying
advantage of unlimited spending

82
00:05:27,220 --> 00:05:27,980
potential.

83
00:05:28,460 --> 00:05:30,720
With this, we end Article 2.

84
00:05:31,280 --> 00:05:33,580
In the next class, we look at Article
3.

85
00:05:33,960 --> 00:05:34,720
Thank you.