This above photo was reproduced with the permission of Flickr user Hajee.
All eyes are on Philadelphia this week, as the Democratic Party kicks off its national convention here today. With this historic event taking place in the University of Pennsylvania’s hometown, RegBlog is dispatching a team of staff writers to the Convention arena, where they will report on the highlights of each day’s events. Along with this daily reporting, RegBlog will feature insights from some of the Convention’s notable attendees on the implications
of this election for significant regulatory issues.
This Convention-week reporting also marks the launch of RegBlog’s special focus on the U.S. election, which will be spotlighted on the site’s homepage through November. Over the course of the next few months, readers can return to this page to find RegBlog’s complete coverage of the latest regulatory-related election news and analysis. As part of this special feature, RegBlog has in the works a variety of interviews, commentaries, and down-ticket news—not to mention relevant election-oriented policy analyses on issues, ranging from campaign finance to financial regulation.
Tuesday, July 19, 2016 | Daniel Tokaji
The Supreme Court case, Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, lies at the intersection of two important developments in the law of redistricting: the use of independent commissions to draw district lines, and the refinement of the one person, one vote rule. A brief look at the history of redistricting is vital to understanding Harris’s significance as well as the bigger issues the decision implicates.
Thursday, May 12, 2016 | Sara Bodnar
To celebrate its Fifth Anniversary Series, RegBlog hosted a diverse panel of experts to look ahead at the next five years of regulation. Panelists were asked to identify the nation’s regulatory priorities, which sparked a lively debate about where regulators should best focus their future efforts: on greater implementation of cost-benefit analysis, increasing transparency, promulgating more rules, or doing a retrospective review of current rules.
Wednesday, April 20, 2016 | Richard L. Hasen
The rules regulating money in federal elections have become increasingly loosened due to court rulings, bureaucratic shortcomings, political gridlock, and aggressive election lawyers. The result is that spending unlimited and undisclosed sums to influence our federal elections has become child’s play. Given the deregulatory path campaign finance is on, even a new, more liberal Supreme Court majority would do little to fix the problems.