Case Study Grading Rubric – Fall 2015 Levels of Quality Performance Criteria Needs Improvement Meets Expectations Exceptional Structure 0 to 10 points Disorganized Needs reorganizing Well organized, flows logically Analysis 0 to 40 points Mostly opinions, arguments not supported Some arguments supported All solid arguments with support Style and Readability 0 to 10 points Many misspellings, not edited, problems with grammar and sentence structure Less than 3 misspellings, appears to be edited, grammar and sentence structure acceptable No misspellings, well edited, grammar and sentence structure excellent, easily readable Originality 0 to 20 points Not original, based solely on lectures and readings Less than 3 original insights and arguments Many original insights and arguments Thoroughness 0 to 20 points Some elements of assignment not completed All elements of assignment completed All elements of assignment completed with exceptional thoroughness Center for Public Integrity The ‘Citizens United’ decision and why it matters Nonprofits or political parties? By John Dunbaremail By now most folks know that the U.S. Supreme Court did something that changed how money can be spent in elections and by whom, but what happened and why should you care? The Citizens United ruling, released in January 2010, tossed out the corporate and union ban on making independent expenditures and financing electioneering communications. It gave corporations and unions the green light to spend unlimited sums on ads and other political tools, calling for the election or defeat of individual candidates. In a nutshell, the high court’s 5-4 decision said that it is OK for corporations and labor unions to spend as much as they want to convince people to vote for or against a candidate. The decision did not affect contributions. It is still illegal for companies and labor unions to give money directly to candidates for federal office. The court said that because these funds were not being spent in coordination with a campaign, they “do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.” So if the decision was about spending, why has so much been written about contributions? Like seven and eight-figure donations from people like casino magnate and billionaire Sheldon Adelson who, with his family, has given about $40 million to so-called “super PACs,” formed in the wake of the decision? For that, we need to look at another court case — SpeechNow.org v. FEC. The lower-court case used the Citizens United case as precedent when it said that limits on contributions to groups that make independent expenditures are unconstitutional. And that’s what led to the creation of the super PACs, which act as shadow political parties. They accept unlimited donations from billionaires, corporations and unions and use it to buy advertising, most of it negative. The Supreme Court kept limits on disclosure in place, and super PACs are requi ...

1. Case Study Grading Rubric – Fall 2015
Levels of Quality
Performance
Criteria
Needs Improvement
Meets Expectations
Exceptional
Structure
0 to 10 points
Disorganized
Needs reorganizing
Well organized, flows logically
Analysis
0 to 40 points
Mostly opinions, arguments not supported
Some arguments supported

2. All solid arguments with support
Style and Readability
0 to 10 points
Many misspellings, not edited, problems with grammar and
sentence structure
Less than 3 misspellings, appears to be edited, grammar and
sentence structure acceptable
No misspellings, well edited, grammar and sentence structure
excellent, easily readable
Originality
0 to 20 points
Not original, based solely on lectures and readings
Less than 3 original insights and arguments
Many original insights and arguments
Thoroughness
0 to 20 points
Some elements of assignment not completed
All elements of assignment completed

3. All elements of assignment completed with exceptional
thoroughness
Center for Public Integrity
The ‘Citizens United’ decision and why it matters
Nonprofits or political parties?
By John Dunbaremail
By now most folks know that the U.S. Supreme Court did
something that changed how money can be spent in elections
and by whom, but what happened and why should you care?
The Citizens United ruling, released in January 2010, tossed out
the corporate and union ban on making independent
expenditures and financing electioneering communications. It
gave corporations and unions the green light to spend unlimited
sums on ads and other political tools, calling for the election or
defeat of individual candidates.
In a nutshell, the high court’s 5-4 decision said that it is OK for
corporations and labor unions to spend as much as they want to
convince people to vote for or against a candidate.
The decision did not affect contributions. It is still illegal for
companies and labor unions to give money directly to
candidates for federal office. The court said that because these
funds were not being spent in coordination with a campaign,
they “do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of
corruption.”
So if the decision was about spending, why has so much been
written about contributions? Like seven and eight-figure
donations from people like casino magnate and billionaire
Sheldon Adelson who, with his family, has given about $40
million to so-called “super PACs,” formed in the wake of the

4. decision?
For that, we need to look at another court case —
SpeechNow.org v. FEC. The lower-court case used the Citizens
United case as precedent when it said that limits on
contributions to groups that make independent expenditures are
unconstitutional.
And that’s what led to the creation of the super PACs, which act
as shadow political parties. They accept unlimited donations
from billionaires, corporations and unions and use it to buy
advertising, most of it negative.
The Supreme Court kept limits on disclosure in place, and super
PACs are required to report regularly on who their donors are.
The same can’t be said for “social welfare” groups and some
other nonprofits, like business leagues.
These groups can function the same way as super PACs, so long
as election activity is not their primary activity. But unlike the
super PACs, nonprofits do not report who funds them. That’s
disturbing to those who favor transparency in elections. An
attempt by Congress to pass a law requiring disclosure was
blocked by Republican lawmakers.
The Citizens United decision was surprising given the
sensitivity regarding corporate and union money being used to
influence a federal election. Congress first banned corporations
from funding federal campaigns in 1907 with the Tillman Act.
In 1947, the Taft-Hartley Act extended the ban to labor unions.
But the laws were weak and tough to enforce.
Bottom of Form
It wasn’t until 1971 that Congress got serious and passed the
Federal Election Campaign Act, which required the full
reporting of campaign contributions and expenditures. It limited
spending on media advertisements. But that portion of the law
was ruled unconstitutional — and that actually opened the door
for the Citizens United decision.
Spending is speech, and is therefore protected by the
Constitution — even if the speaker is a corporation.
So far in the 2011-2012 election cycle, super PACs have spent

5. $378 million, while non-disclosing nonprofits have spent $171
million, at times praising, but mostly badmouthing candidates,
according to figures compiled by the Center for Responsive
Politics.
Case Study #1 Questions – Fall 2015
1. What is the history of money’s influence in politics (can be
brief) and what are the important attempts in the last 20 years
by Congress to regulate, or the Supreme Court to interpret,
campaign financing.
2. What are the pros and cons of allowing money to play a role
in politics?
3. Is the influence of money in politics a current problem? If
so, in what way? What mechanisms are currently used by
political parties, wealthy individuals, and interest groups to get
around campaign finance laws?
4. Have any campaign reforms been proposed? What are some
of them?
5. Is “Big Money” in politics a threat to democracy? In what
way?
6. What is your position on the proper role of money in
elections and in setting public policy? What do you base your
position on?
PBS Online: Frontline

6. (1) Current federal contribution limits have not been adjusted
for inflation in more than 20 years. The maximum individual
contribution -- set at $1,000 in 1974 -- is worth approximately
$300 in 1996 dollars. Candidates need to raise more than 3
times what they did 22 years ago to achieve the same result.
(1) Only a small percentage of citizens can afford to give
$1,000 or more to a candidates. Increasing the contribution limit
or abolishing it altogethermight magnify the influence that
wealthy individuals and groups have over elected officials.
(2) Studies show that PACs and related organizations prefer to
give money to incumbent candidates, not challengers. Raising
contribution limits might help challengers raise enough money
to get their campaigns off the ground.
(2) Because PACs and wealthy individual contributors favor
incumbents, there is no reason to believe that challengers will
have an easier time raising money from those same sources if
limits are lifted.
(3) Candidates would spend less time fundraising, and more
time meeting citizens and tending to their official duties.
(3) Campaign finance problems would not be resolved by
adding more money to the current system or doing nothing at
all. We are much more likely to succeed if we build on what
works in our current system.
(4) Given the escalating cost of political communications,
especially the cost of TV advertising, candidates need more
money than ever to communicate effectively with voters.
(4) People who are wealthy enough to spend lots of money on
political activities that are not limited by current campaign
finance laws (like soft money, independent expenditures) will
continue to do so, making higher limits as easy to evade legally
as current limits.
home | fixers game | interviews | special reports | cartoons |
"show us the money" | press | discussion

7. web site copyright 1995-2014 WGBH educational foundation