Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorCole, David
dc.date2021-11-25T13:36:34.000
dc.date.accessioned2021-11-26T12:31:06Z
dc.date.available2021-11-26T12:31:06Z
dc.date.issued2015-10-16T07:43:34-07:00
dc.identifierylpr/vol9/iss2/4
dc.identifier.contextkey7732287
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.13051/17446
dc.description.abstractJudging from the rhetoric of the dissenting Justices, the Supreme Court's decision in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, which upheld limits on corporate campaign speech, marked a revolution in First Amendment jurisprudence. Justice Kennedy branded the majority a "censor," and characterized the result as "the most severe restriction on political speech ever sanctioned by this Court. " Justice Scalia warned that by accepting the majority's rationale, "the First Amendment will ultimately be brought down. But dissenters' rhetoric, like campaign speech itself, must be taken with a grain of salt.
dc.titleFirst Amendment Antitrust: The End of Laissez-Faire in Campaign Finance
dc.source.journaltitleYale Law & Policy Review
refterms.dateFOA2021-11-26T12:31:07Z
dc.identifier.legacycoverpagehttps://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/ylpr/vol9/iss2/4
dc.identifier.legacyfulltexthttps://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1206&context=ylpr&unstamped=1


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
16_9YaleL_PolyRev236_SpringSum ...
Size:
2.706Mb
Format:
PDF

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record