Independent legal scholar Mutch (Campaigns, Congress and Courts: The Making of Federal Campaign Finance Law, 1988) contends that theCitizens United(2010) Supreme Court ruling has reversed more than 100 years of electoral reform and overthrown long-accepted legal definitions of equality, democracy and free speech.The author contributes a broad perspective to the heated controversy provoked by the current Supreme Court and its decision that corporations can use their financial power to influence electoral outcomesputting corporations on par with individual people. Mutch identifies two cycles of election finance reform: the first beginning around the 1904 election of Theodore Roosevelt and the second, with the 1974 resignation of President Richard Nixon. Both, he shows, were driven by outrage over the role of money in politics. In the early 20thcentury, many feared the corrosive effects of large corporate financial contributions as undermining the notions of equality and democracy. Mutch quotes New Hampshire Sen. William Chandler, one of the founders of the Republican Party and co-sponsor of federal legislation to bring financial transparency to the electoral process: A republic is supposed to be individual government.But when corporations can furnish money to carry elections from corporate treasuries individualism in government is gone. Over the decades, the fears have prompted only partially successful legislative efforts. After Nixon, two 1970s casesBuckley v. ValeoandFirst National Bank of Boston v. Bellottiestablished money as a protected equivalent of human speech and permitted direct corporate funding of elections.[T]racking changes in where campaign funds actually come from, writes Mutch, reveals thattoday's system differs only in degree from the Gilded Age system the first reformers tried to uproot.An excellent discussion of election finance reform for policymakers and political watchersthough the audience may not include many general readers. Copyright Kirkus Reviews, used with permission.

American campaign finance can be a tricky subject to write about. There are parallel tracks of analysis (political history and constitutional law), and they are dense and difficult to explain, especially the perpetually swerving Supreme Court jurisprudence. To write a very good book on either dynamic is an achievement. To write an extraordinary book that skillfully addresses and integrates both dynamics is a triumph, and that is the case here. This sweeping account of campaign finance reform begins in the late 19th century, a period often overlooked by scholars, who tend to start with the progressivism of Theodore Roosevelt and the 1907 Tillman Act, and continues through the practical subsequent effects of Citizens United v. FEC. Mutch relates the political background in a readable, engrossing writing style and explains the complexities of key legal opinions in a way that even undergraduates or newcomers to the subject can follow. Most important, the political background and legal decisions are interwoven to give readers a holistic account of how the politics and law of campaign finance evolved over time. This is one of the best books on the subject in recent memory. Summing Up: Highly recommended. All readership levels. --Steven B. Lichtman, Shippensburg University

Campaign finance expert Mutch surveys an incendiary and timely subject with considerable finesse. Taking a historical perspective, he begins with an analysis of the election of 1904 and the individuals contributing to Theodore Roosevelt's successful bid for the presidency. He surveys campaign financing trends and reform cycles during the 20th century, contending (though too broadly) that Republicans have been the "sole business party since 1896." He briefly considers Barack Obama's 2008 campaign innovations, notably how his team used the Internet for fund-raising. Mutch includes detailed commentaries on Supreme Court rulings, focusing on the widely followed and criticized 2010 Citizens United case, the ruling that prohibits the government from restricting corporate and union political expenditures, and vastly widens the power of outside money in the electoral system. Mutch condemns the decision, saying the Court's "history is fanciful and the logic is ideological." Given prevailing judicial thought on the First Amendment and rights of corporations, he is pessimistic about the possibilities of containing their influence in future elections. (Aug.) (c) Copyright PWxyz, LLC. All rights reserved.

In the 2010 Citizens United decision, the U.S. Supreme Court changed dramatically the rules of how campaigns for federal office are financed. The decision gutted the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, weakened its enforcement agency, removed limits on contributions made by individuals (including corporations), and virtually eliminated the disclosure requirement. Campaign finance arose as a major issue in American democracy during the Gilded Age with the rise of large corporations. The concern was the inequity in political influence exercised by corporations over that of individual citizens. Should American democracy be based on egalitarianism or inegalitarianism? This question, according to Mutch (Campaigns, Congress, and Courts), an independent scholar on the history of campaign finance, has been at the center of the debate surrounding reform. He traces the evolution of campaign finance through two cycles of reform: from 1884 through 1948 and from 1952 to the present. Mutch includes rarely used primary and extensive secondary sources to demonstrate how corporate and political elites created an inegalitarian definition of American democracy. VERDICT This is a well-documented, comprehensive account of the decline of campaign finance reform and the transformation of American democracy. Readers of American politics, public policy, and political history will especially be interested in this book.-Glen Edward Taul, Campbellsville Univ. Libs., KY (c) Copyright 2014. Library Journals LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Media Source, Inc. No redistribution permitted.