In Defense of Scholarship Article
Date of Publication:
Recommended Citation
Elizabeth Berenguer, In Defense of Scholarship, 27 Second Draft 4 (2013)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
2013
Transnational Mass Claims Processes in International Law and Practice Article
Date of Publication:
Recommended Citation
Jason S. Palmer and Arturo J. Carillo, Transnational Mass Claims Processes in International Law and Practice, 25 Berkeley Journal of International Law 343 (2013)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
This article recognizes a growing overlap in the literature between international mass claims processes (“IMCPS”) and transitional justice claims processes (“TJCPs”), i.e. domestic reparations programs adopted by successor governments in the wake of mass atrocity. This convergence is reflected in a number of recent publications in both fields that promote the comparative analysis of IMCPs and TJCPs, which in turn, leads to the conclusion that the two processes share a number of analogous characteristics. Commentators tend to view these ostensibly shared traits as a natural source of “best practices” or “lessons” transferable between mass claims procedures in the international and domestic settings. Consequently, it is not uncommon in recent publications to find detailed analyses of individual IMCPs placed alongside TJCPs, often without more, implying that experiences should naturally translate from one process to the other. In this article, Professors Jason Palmer and Arturo Carrillo demonstrate how several of the assumptions underlying the increasing comparisons of IMCPs and TJCPs, as presented in the recent literature on mass claims processing and reparations for gross and systematic human rights violations, are flawed. Building on an in-depth study of seminal IMCP and TJCP experiences, Professor Palmer and Professor Carrillo conduct a comprehensive analysis of the two categories to provide answers to key questions in this regard: To what extent are IMCPs and TJCPs truly comparable? Which IMCP principles and precedents are most relevant to domestic reparations programs? Are there principles and precedents from the TJCP context that might nourish ongoing or future IMCP initiatives? And, of course, to what extent are IMCPs and TJCPs different? What is the nature of these differences, and what do they tell us about the underlying compatibility of the experiences and mechanisms contrasted? In answering these questions, the article exposes a number of inherent limitations to the comparison of IMCPs and TJCPs that to date have remained unaddressed. The article demonstrates that a number of basic IMCP characteristics apparently shared with TJCPs provide a dubious foundation for constructive comparison, including that central component of most mass claims processes: compensation. At the same time, the authors delineate more clearly a narrow but promising path of intriguing synergies, labeled “true parallels,” establishing furthermore that such parallels represent avenues for potential cross-fertilization in both directions.
Death by Boarding School: “The Last Acceptable Racism” and the United States’ Genocide of Native Americans Article
Date of Publication:
Recommended Citation
Ann Piccard, Death by Boarding School: “The Last Acceptable Racism” and the United States’ Genocide of Native Americans, 49 Gonz. L. Rev. 137 (2013)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
The SEC and Dark Political Money Blog Post
Date of Publication:
Recommended Citation
Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, The SEC and Dark Political Money (2013)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Democracy’s Masquerade Ball Media
Date of Publication:
Recommended Citation
Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, Democracy’s Masquerade Ball (2013)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Somebody Give Bill Gates and Drew Faust a Copy of Citizens Disunited Media
Date of Publication:
Recommended Citation
Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, Somebody Give Bill Gates and Drew Faust a Copy of Citizens Disunited (2013)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Bring Political Cash Out of the Shadows Media
Date of Publication:
Recommended Citation
Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, Bring Political Cash Out of the Shadows (2013)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Trusts and Estates for Veterans and Active Duty Families Book Chapter
Date of Publication:
Recommended Citation
Stacey-Rae Simcox and Mark Matthews, Trusts and Estates for Veterans and Active Duty Families, in The American Bar Association Legal Guide for Military Families (American Bar Association, 2013)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Put Your Library on the Map, Part 2: The Waiting Game Article
Date of Publication:
Recommended Citation
Ashley Krenelka, Put Your Library on the Map, Part 2: The Waiting Game, AALL Spectrum Online (2013)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Safeguarding Markets from Pernicious Pay to Play: A Model Explaining Why the SEC Regulates Money in Politics Article
Date of Publication:
Recommended Citation
Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, Safeguarding Markets from Pernicious Pay to Play: A Model Explaining Why the SEC Regulates Money in Politics, 12 Conn. Pub. Int. L.J. 361 (2013)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
At first blush, the SEC’s regulation of money in politics may seem to fall outside of its jurisdiction, but this is a mistake. This view ignores three previous times when the SEC stepped in to curb pay to play: (1) in the municipal bond market in 1994; (2) in the public pension fund market in 2010; and (3) in investigating questionable payments post-Watergate from 1974 to 1977. The result of the first two interventions led to new Commission rules and the third intervention resulted in the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (a federal statute).
When these three previous SEC interventions into the role of money in politics are examined, a principled model emerges for when the Commission’s regulatory intervention is appropriate. The principled model, hereinafter known as the “Money in Politics Model,” has the following characteristics: there must be (1) a potential for market inefficiencies; (2) a problem that is not likely self-correct through normal market forces; (3) a lack of transparency; (4) a material amount of aggregated money at stake; and (5) a high probability for corruption of the government.
The Money in Politics Model’s characteristics were present in the all three past SEC interventions. As will be explained in more detail below, in the municipal bond market and public pension funds, there was an endemic problem of pay to play between state elected officials and businesses eager to contract with them for lucrative fees. The post-Watergate investigation revealed even more profound problem of secret corporate funds used for political contributions domestically and bribes of foreign officials abroad.
So does the post-Citizens United world of corporate political spending rise to the same level as these three previous examples? Does post-Citizens United political spending fit the SEC’s Money in Politics Model and merit the SEC’s intervention? This article will argue that the Model fits and the SEC should act.
The SEC is not new to the inherent conflicts of interest between business and government, especially when elected officials have the ability to make private contractors in the financial services industry rich through commissions and fees. The risk of corruption is intrinsic in such a situation. Here corruption is best captured by the definition as “the misuse of public…office for direct or indirect personal gain.” What is new as of January 2010, thanks to Citizens United, is the potential for every publicly traded company to try to influence the government not just through traditional lobbying, but also through campaign expenditures. This new problem merits a new SEC intervention to reveal the campaign activities of public companies.