Citizens Divided (The Tanner Lectures on Human Values) and over 2 million other books are available for Amazon Kindle . Learn more

Sign in to turn on 1-Click ordering.
More Buying Choices
Have one to sell? Sell yours here
Sorry, this item is not available in
Image not available for
Image not available

Start reading Citizens Divided (The Tanner Lectures on Human Values) on your Kindle in under a minute.

Don't have a Kindle? Get your Kindle here, or download a FREE Kindle Reading App.

Citizens Divided: Campaign Finance Reform and the Constitution (Tanner Lectures on Human Values) (The Tanner Lectures on Human Values) [Abridged, Audiobook, Box set, Illustrated, Large Print] [Hardcover]

Robert C. Post , Pamela S. Karlan , Lawrence Lessig , Frank I. Michelman , Nadia Urbinati

RRP: 22.95
Price: 20.94 & FREE Delivery in the UK. Details
You Save: 2.01 (9%)
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
Only 2 left in stock (more on the way).
Dispatched from and sold by Amazon. Gift-wrap available.
Want it tomorrow, 22 Aug.? Choose Express delivery at checkout. Details


Amazon Price New from Used from
Kindle Edition 18.39  
Hardcover, Abridged, Audiobook, Box set 20.94  

Book Description

3 Jun 2014 The Tanner Lectures on Human Values (Book 14)
The Supreme Court's 5-4 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, " which struck down a federal prohibition on independent corporate campaign expenditures, is one of the most controversial opinions in recent memory. Defenders of the First Amendment greeted the ruling with enthusiasm, while advocates of electoral reform recoiled in disbelief. Robert Post offers a new constitutional theory that seeks to reconcile these sharply divided camps. Post interprets constitutional conflict over campaign finance reform as an argument between those who believe self-government requires democratic participation in the formation of public opinion and those who believe that self-government requires a functioning system of representation. The former emphasize the value of free speech, while the latter emphasize the integrity of the electoral process. Each position has deep roots in American constitutional history. Post argues that both positions aim to nurture self-government, which in contemporary life can flourish only if elections are structured to create public confidence that elected officials are attentive to public opinion. Post spells out the many implications of this simple but profound insight. Critiquing the First Amendment reasoning of the Court in Citizens United, "he also shows that the Court did not clearly grasp the constitutional dimensions of corporate speech. Blending history, constitutional law, and political theory, Citizens Divided "explains how a Supreme Court case of far-reaching consequence might have been decided differently, in a manner that would have preserved both First Amendment rights and electoral integrity.

Product details

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, and more.

Product Description


Robert Post offers a powerful critique of the "Citizens United" decision, and an original and compelling new perspective on how the Supreme Court should analyze campaign finance laws in light of the First Amendment s commitment to electoral integrity.--Geoffrey R. Stone, University of Chicago"

Inside This Book (Learn More)
Browse Sample Pages
Front Cover | Copyright | Table of Contents | Excerpt | Index
Search inside this book:

Customer Reviews

There are no customer reviews yet on
5 star
4 star
3 star
2 star
1 star
Most Helpful Customer Reviews on (beta) 5.0 out of 5 stars  1 review
5.0 out of 5 stars A New Take on an Old Debate 30 July 2014
By adeichen - Published on
A wonderful new take on how campaign finance cases should be interpreted. Based on Robert Post's Tanner lectures, this book tackles the controversial decision in Citizens United v. FEC. Post argues that the government has—since the first major campaign finance case to reach the Supreme Court in 1976 (Buckley v. Valejo)—been submitting the wrong arguments to the Court. By advancing the compelling interest of "electoral integrity", Post, at least in this reviewer's opinion, does a wonderful job expanding the debate, giving proponents of campaign finance regulation new hope in confronting the ever-growing reality of complete failure in the case law of the Supreme Court. This book is in no way an easy read, as it is filled with legal jargon and complex judicial analysis, but it should be highly recommended, if only to expand the way we might think about the First Amendment and regulating campaign finance.
Was this review helpful?   Let us know

Customer Discussions

This product's forum
Discussion Replies Latest Post
No discussions yet

Ask questions, Share opinions, Gain insight
Start a new discussion
First post:
Prompts for sign-in

Search Customer Discussions
Search all Amazon discussions

Look for similar items by category