Harvard Law School
The Supreme Court says that campaign finance regulations are unconstitutional unless they target "quid pro quo" corruption or its appearance. To test those appearances, we fielded two studies. First, in a highly realistic simulation, three grand juries deliberated on charges that a campaign spender bribed a Congressperson. Second, 1271 representative online respondents considered whether to convict, with five variables manipulated randomly. In both studies, jurors found quid pro quo corruption for behaviors they believed to be common. This research suggests that Supreme Court decisions were wrongly decided and that Congress and the states have greater authority to regulate campaign finance. Prosecutions for bribery raise serious problems for the First Amendment, due process, and separation of powers. Safe harbors may be a solution.
Christopher Robertson, D. Alex Winkelman, Kelly Bergstrand & Darren Modzelewski,
The Appearance and the Reality of Quid Pro Quo Corruption: An Empirical Investigation,
Journal of Legal Analysis
Available at: https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/faculty_scholarship/967