English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

In January 2010, the Supreme Court in Citizens United v. FEC overturned long-standing regulations governing the role of unions and corporations in sponsoring pro-candidate advocacy.  Many predicted a deleterious effect on the electoral process.   In the aftermath of the midterm elections, a number of questions deserve consideration.  Was the observed level of outside spending abnormally high in 2010?  What can we say about the potential effect of outside spending on the outcomes of House and Senate races?  Moreover, what has the decision done to the power of parties and, most especially, their ability to compete with special interests in backing federal candidates?  This paper investigates these questions using data from the Wesleyan Media Project, which tracked political ads in 2010.  The initial evidence suggests that while interest groups were aggressive players in the air war, their impact may not have been as negative or as large as initially predicted.

The Citizens United Election? Or Same As It Ever Was?