Contemporary Authors

• The Constitution of Electoral Speech Law: The Supreme Court and Freedom of Expression in Campaigns and Elections Stanford Law Books (Stanford, CA), 2008

1. The constitution of electoral speech law : the Supreme Court and freedom of expression in campaigns and elections LCCN 2007049506 Type of material Book Personal name Pinaire, Brian K., 1974- Main title The constitution of electoral speech law : the Supreme Court and freedom of expression in campaigns and elections / Brian K. Pinaire. Published/Created Stanford, Calif. : Stanford Law Books, c2008. Description xv, 349 p. ; 24 cm. ISBN 9780804757249 (cloth : alk. paper) 0804757240 (cloth : alk. paper) Links Table of contents only http://www.loc.gov/catdir/toc/ecip086/2007049506.html Contributor biographical information http://www.loc.gov/catdir/enhancements/fy0829/2007049506-b.html Publisher description http://www.loc.gov/catdir/enhancements/fy0829/2007049506-d.html CALL NUMBER KF4770 .P56 2008 Copy 1 Request in Law Library Reading Room (Madison, LM242) CALL NUMBER KF4770 .P56 2008 Copy 2 Request in Law Library Reading Room (Madison, LM242)

• This Is Not Your Father's Fatherhood - 2017 Moonshot Books ,

• Amazon -

  Brian K. Pinaire is a writer, researcher, editor, and former tenured professor of political science at Lehigh University. He holds a BA in politics from Whitman College and a PhD in political science from Rutgers University. Pinaire is the author of THIS IS NOT YOUR FATHER'S FATHERHOOD: a comic memoir, THE CONSTITUTION OF ELECTORAL SPEECH LAW, and over seventy articles in both academic journals and commercial outlets. You can review his published works at www.brianpinaire.com.

• - http://www.brianpinaire.com/

  Brian K. Pinaire is a writer, researcher, and editor living in Portland, Oregon. He holds a BA in politics from Whitman College and a PhD in political science from Rutgers University. Pinaire was formerly a tenured professor of political science at Lehigh University, where he received multiple awards for teaching and research. He is the author of two books, THIS IS NOT YOUR FATHER'S FATHERHOOD and THE CONSTITUTION OF ELECTORAL SPEECH LAW, as well as several dozen articles for academic journals and commercial outlets.
  Pinaire is available for freelance writing, research, and editing assignments. The Services page provides more details on his expertise, the Publications page offers links to his various published works, and the Awards page lists honors he has received. You can reach him via the Contact page or connect with him through Twitter, Goodreads, Upwork, or Guru.
  Click here for a copy of his curriculum vitae.

  BRIAN K. PINAIRE

  Email: brianpinaire@gmail.com
  Website: www.brianpinaire.com
  Cell: 443.226.1902

  EDUCATION

   PhD, Political Science, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ (1997-2003)

   BA, Politics (with honors), Whitman College, Walla Walla, WA (1993-1997)

  PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE

   Academic Editor, Winston Greene Academic Services (2017-present)

   Consultant, Cognella Academic Publishing (2017-present)

   Freelance writer, researcher, and editor (2014-present)

  o Upwork profile: https://www.upwork.com/fl/brianpinaire2

  o Guru profile: https://www.guru.com/freelancers/brian-k.-pinaire

   Associate Professor, Dept. of Political Science, Lehigh University (2009-2013)

   Assistant Professor, Dept. of Political Science, Lehigh University (2003-2009)

   Instructor, Dept. of English (Writing Program), Rutgers University (2000-2002)

   Instructor, Dept. of Political Science, Rutgers University (1998-2000)

   Teaching Assistant, Dept. of Political Science, Rutgers University (1998-2000)

  PUBLICATIONS

  Books

   This Is Not Your Father’s Fatherhood: a comic memoir (Moonshot Books, 2017)

   The Constitution of Electoral Speech Law: The Supreme Court and Freedom of Expression in Campaigns and Elections (Stanford University Press, 2008)

  Articles, Entries & Reviews

   “19 Things Not to Say to Your Professor on the First Day of Class (Or Any Other Time),” The Journal of Irreproducible Results (forthcoming, 2018)

   “The First Father’s Day for Adam, Father of All Mankind,” Janice Magazine (August 4, 2017)

   “Just Let Us Pump Our Own Gas Already,” The Oregonian (July 16, 2017)

   “President Trump’s Father’s Day Schedule,” The Huffington Post (June 7, 2017)

   “World’s Best Dad!,” The Huffington Post (June 16, 2016)

   “Why Hillary Clinton Should Recruit David Petraeus for Vice President,” The Huffington Post (May 23, 2016)

   “President Trump’s Cabinet,” The Huffington Post (April 23, 2016)

   “The Black Lives Matter Movement Shouldn’t Have Protested Bernie Sanders’s Speech,” The Huffington Post (August 10, 2015)

   Review: The Tough Luck Constitution, Andrew Koppelman (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013); Choice (November 2013)

   “Is There a Text in This Class?”, The Journal of Irreproducible Results 52:1 (Fall 2013)

   “Q & A with Brian Pinaire: The Supreme Court’s Same-Sex Marriage Rulings,” Lehigh University (June 28, 2013)

   “Judicial Modesty Rules in Fisher’s Affirmative Action Challenge,” The Morning Call (Allentown, Pa) (June 26, 2013)

   “Just a Little off the Top, Please,” The Huffington Post (June 26, 2013)

   “Graduation Day,” The Huffington Post (May 8, 2013)

   Review: An Introduction to Political Crime, Jeffrey Ian Ross (Bristol: The Policy Press, 2012); Law & Politics Book Review, 22:12 (December 2012), pp. 582-85

   “Office Hours,” The Huffington Post (November 29, 2012)

   “Law & Order: The Politics of Crime and Punishment,” Choice 49 (November 2012), pp. 407-20

   “Manifesto of the Common Sense Party,” The Huffington Post (September 10, 2012)

   “GOP Conventioneering,” The Huffington Post (August 23, 2012)

   Review: The Oxford Handbook of Juvenile Crime and Juvenile Justice, Barry Feld and Donna Bishop, ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012); Choice (July 2012)

   “The Attraction of Distraction,” The Huffington Post (June 14, 2012)

   “‘Philadelphia Lawyers’: Policing the Law in Pennsylvania,” Journal of the Professional Lawyer (American Bar Association) (2012), pp. 137-79 (with Milton Heumann and Christian Scarlett)

   “Who Let (the) Dog Out?,” Criminal Law Bulletin 47:6 (November-December 2011), pp. 1169-85

   Review: Habeas Corpus in America: The Politics of Individual Rights, Justin Wert (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2011); Choice (October 2011)

   “Democracy Is Missing from the Constitution,” The Morning Call (Allentown, Pa) (September 17, 2011)

   Review: Congress Shall Make No Law: The First Amendment, Unprotected Expression, and the U.S. Supreme Court, David M. O’Brien (New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 2011); Law & Politics Book Review, 21:7 (July 2011), pp. 416-20

   “Not Guilty Does Not Mean Innocent,” The Philadelphia Inquirer (July 7, 2011), A15

   “Learning Involves More Than Filling in the Blanks,” The Morning Call (Allentown, Pa) (May 27, 2011)

   Review: The Cycle of Juvenile Justice, 2nd ed., Thomas Bernard and Megan Kurlychek (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010); Choice (May 2011)

   Review: The American Supreme Court, 5th ed., by Robert McCloskey; revised by Sanford Levinson (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2010); Choice (January 2011)

   Review: Freeing Speech: The Constitutional War Over National Security, by John Denvir (New York: NYU Press, 2010); Law & Politics Book Review, 20:8 (August 2010), pp. 356-61

   “How Will Kagan Decide Cases? It’s Unknown, Just like with Other Nominees,” The Patriot-News (Harrisburg, Pa) (July 20, 2010)

   “Have You Heard About the Political Candidate Who Said . . . ?”, The Morning Call (Allentown, Pa) (June 18, 2010), 21

   “Sestak’s Best Non-Supporter,” The Philadelphia Inquirer (June 3, 2010), p. A13 (with Frank Davis)

   “Bad Medicine: On Disciplining Physician Felons,” The Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution 11:1 (Fall 2009), pp. 133-80 (with Milton Heumann and Simon Burger)

   Review: The Supreme Court on Trial: How the American Justice System Sacrifices Innocent Defendants, by George C. Thomas, III (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2008); Choice (October 2009)

   Review: Ellery’s Protest: How One Young Man Defied Tradition and Sparked the Battle over School Prayer, by Stephen D. Solomon (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2009-paperback edition); Law & Politics Book Review, 19:6 (June 2009), pp. 355-59

   Review: Speech out of Doors, by Timothy Zick (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008); Perspectives on Politics 7:2 (June 2009), pp. 418-20

   Review: The Perils of Federalism: Race, Poverty, and the Politics of Crime Control, by Lisa L. Miller (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008); Choice (May 2009)

   Review: Equality and Liberty in the Golden Age of State Constitutional Law, Jeffrey M. Shaman (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008); Choice (December 2008)

   “Actively Learning Public Law,” Law & Courts 18:3 (Summer 2008), pp. 31-42

   Review: Doing Justice to Mercy: Religion, Law, and Criminal Justice, ed. Jonathan Rothchild, Matthew Myer Boulton, and Kevin Jung (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2007); Law & Politics Book Review, 18: 6 (June 2008), pp. 517-22

   “Prescribing Justice: The Law and Politics of Discipline for Physician Felony Offenders,” Boston University Public Interest Law Journal 17:1 (December 2007), pp. 1-38 (with Milton Heumann and Jennifer Lerman)

   Encyclopedia of Law and Society: American and Global Perspectives, David S. Clark, ed., Sage Publications (2007) (one entry; 1,600 words)

   “The Essential Kafka: Definition, Distention, and Dilution in Legal Rhetoric,” University of Louisville Law Review 46:1 (2007), pp. 115-58

   The Encyclopedia of American Civil Liberties, Paul Finkelman, ed., Routledge Reference (2006) (seven entries; 6,000 words)

   “Barred from the Bar: The Process, Politics, and Policy Implications of Discipline for Attorney Felony Offenders,” Virginia Journal of Social Policy & the Law 13:2 (Winter 2006), pp. 290-330 (with Milton Heumann and Jennifer Lerman)

   Review: Contested Words: Legal Restrictions on Freedom of Speech in Liberal Democracies, Ian Cram (London: Ashgate, 2006); Law & Politics Book Review 16: 12 (December 2006), pp. 970-974

   Encyclopedia of the Supreme Court, David Schultz, ed., Facts on File, Inc. (2005) (four entries; 2,000 words)

   “Internet Conspiracies: Where the Absence of Evidence Is Confirmation of the Claim,” Skeptic Magazine 12: 1 (Fall 2005), p. 26

   Review: Speak No Evil, Jon B. Gould (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005); Law & Politics Book Review 15: 9 (September 2005), pp. 857-62

   “Strange Brew: Method and Form in Electoral Speech Jurisprudence,” Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal 14: 2 (2005), pp. 271-312

   Review: The Right to Vote: Rights and Liberties Under the Law, Donald Grier Stephenson, Jr. (Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, Inc, 2004); Law & Politics Book Review 15: 2 (February 2005), pp. 99-102

   “Beyond the Sentence: Public Perceptions of Collateral Consequences for Felony Offenders,” Criminal Law Bulletin 41:1 (January/February 2005), pp. 24-46 (with Milton Heumann and Thomas Clark)

   Review: Perilous Times: Free Speech in Wartime, Geoffrey Stone (New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 2004); Law & Politics Book Review 14: 11 (November 2004), pp. 896-99

   Review: The American Jury System, Randolph Jonakit (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003); Law & Politics Book Review 14: 6 (June 2004), pp. 389-92

   Encyclopedia of Civil Liberties in America, David Schultz and John R. Vile, eds., M.E. Sharpe, Inc. (2004) (five entries; 2,500 words)

   “Barred from the Vote: Public Attitudes Toward the Disenfranchisement of Felons,” Fordham Urban Law Journal 30 (July 2003), pp. 1519-1550 (with Milton Heumann and Laura Bilotta

   The Oxford Companion to American Law, Oxford University Press (2002) (one entry; 1,000 words—with Milton Heumann)

   “A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Market: The Supreme Court and Political Speech in the Electoral Process,” Journal of Law & Politics 17:3 (Summer 2001), pp. 489-551

  HONORS & AWARDS

   Frank Hook Endowed Assistant Professorship (awarded annually to outstanding junior faculty members throughout the university), Lehigh University (2007-2009)

   Dorothy L. Stabler Award for Excellence in Teaching (awarded to those who have demonstrated “mastery of their field and superior ability in communicating it to others, as well as an exceptional talent for encouraging students to want to understand alternatives and to make choices”), Lehigh University (2007)

   ¬APSA & Pi Sigma Alpha National Political Science Honor Society Award (awarded for “Outstanding Teaching in Political Science”), American Political Science Association (2007)

   Albert C. and Mae S. Svoboda Research Prize (awarded annually for the best journal submission by a graduate student), Rutgers University (2002)

   Graduate Student Teaching Award (university-wide recognition awarded annually to selected individuals for outstanding teaching), Rutgers University (2001)

   Richard Fluno Award (awarded for the best senior thesis), Whitman College (1997)

   Outstanding Junior Politics Major (awarded to the best declared major), Whitman College (1996)

  RESEARCH FUNDING

  Research Grants (competitive):

   Franz & Class of 1968 Fellowship ($4,000), Lehigh University (2007)

   Franz & Class of 1968 Fellowship ($4,500), Lehigh University (2006)

   Franz & Class of 1968 Fellowship ($4,000), Lehigh University (2005)

   Faculty Research Grant, Office of Research and Sponsored Programs ($1,500), Lehigh University (2005)

   Franz & Class of 1968 Fellowship ($4,000), Lehigh University (2004)

   Faculty Research Grant, Office of Research and Sponsored Programs ($995), Lehigh University (2004)

   Franz & Class of 1968 Fellowship ($4,000), Lehigh University (2003)

   Graduate School Fellowship ($13,000), Rutgers University (2002-03)

   Kneller Fund Research Grant ($500) (with Milton Heumann), Rutgers University (2002)

   Kneller Fund Research Grant ($750) (with Milton Heumann), Rutgers University (2001)

  Research Grants (non-competitive):

   Frank Hook Professorship Research Grant ($8,000), Lehigh University (2007-2009)

   Alice Evangelides Memorial Fund Research Grant ($1,000), Rutgers University (2001)

   Dissertation Research Travel Support ($300), Associate Dean of Academic Affairs, The Graduate School, Rutgers University (2001)

  Training Grants (non-competitive):

   Program and Travel Support (for attendance at the Consortium for Qualitative Research Methods, Arizona State University) ($750), Department of Political Science, Rutgers University (2003)

  Travel Grants (non-competitive):

   President & Provost-funded Travel Support (varying amounts), Lehigh University (2004-2011)

  PRESENTATIONS

  Invited

   “Law School—Now or Never?,” Lawyers Without Borders, Lehigh University (2011)

   “Philadelphia Lawyers,” Research Symposium, Department of Political Science, Lehigh University (2011)

   “The Judiciary and Ballot Initiatives,” The Election of 2010: A Post-Mortem, Department of Political Science, Lehigh University (2010)

   “Engaging Students,” Teacher Development Program for Graduate Students, Lehigh University (2009)

   “On the Arts & Sciences at Lehigh,” Office of Admissions Presentation to High School Guidance Counselors, Lehigh University (2005)

   “Why Voting Matters,” Presidential Candidates Panel, Lehigh University (2004)

   “Same Sex Marriage and the Constitution,” Same Sex Marriage Panel, Lehigh University (2004)

   “Debating the Presidential Debate,” Lehigh University (2004)

   Moderator: “USA PATRIOT Act Forum,” Palisades High School (2004)

   Moderator: “Open Political Debate,” Lehigh University (2004)

   “A Seat at the Table? Public Opinion and Voting Rights for Felony Offenders,” Beyond the Sentence Symposium, Fordham University Law School (2003)

   “Criminal Justice Cultures,” Consortium for Qualitative Research, Arizona State University (2003)

   “The Supreme Court and Freedom of Speech in the Electoral Process,” Dean’s Advisory Council, Rutgers University (2002)

   “A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Market: The Supreme Court and Freedom of Speech in the Electoral Process,” DePaul University (2002)

   “A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Market: The Supreme Court and Freedom of Speech in the Electoral Process,” University of Delaware (2002)

   “A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Market: The Supreme Court and Freedom of Speech in the Electoral Process,” Lehigh University (2002)

   “A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Market: The Supreme Court and Freedom of Speech in the Electoral Process,” University of Minnesota (2002)

   “Public Attitudes, Public Policy, and Felony Disenfranchisement,” National Symposium on Felony Disenfranchisement, Washington, D.C. (2002)

   “Social Science Teaching Assistants Answer Your Questions,” New Teaching Assistant Orientation, Rutgers University (2001)

   “Multiple Conceptions of Speech in Campaigns and Elections,” Public Law Workshop, Rutgers University (2001)

   “Freedom of Speech,” Women’s Symposium, Hadassah, Rutgers University (1999)

   “The 1st Amendment,” Women’s Symposium, Hadassah, Rutgers University (1999)

   Discussant: “Media Framing of the McDonald’s Case,” Michael McCann, Emerging Trends, Rutgers University (1999)

  Refereed

   Discussant: “The American Carceral State,” Annual Meeting of the New England Political Science Association, Portland, Maine (2013)

   “Bounty Hunters: Pursuing Justice?”, Annual Meeting of the New England Political Science Association, Portland, Maine (2013)

   “Punitive Policies and American Politics,” Annual Meeting of the Southern Political Science Association, New Orleans, Louisiana (2011)

   “Discipline and Punish? (Self-) Policing the Profession of Law,” Annual Meeting of the Southern Political Science Association, New Orleans, Louisiana (2011)

   “Who Let (the) Dog Out?: The Origins of Bounty Hunting,” Annual Meeting of the Western Political Science Association, San Francisco, California (2010)

   “A Bitter Pill to Swallow: On Disciplining Physician Felons,” Annual Meeting of the Law & Society Association, Denver, Colorado (2009)

   “Outlawry: Origins, Development, Vestiges,” Annual Meeting of the Law & Society Association, Montreal, Canada (2008)

   “Can We Talk?: Seeking Engagement in Adversarial Settings,” Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia, PA (2006)

   “Professional Punishment: Issues and Implications of Discipline for Attorney Felony Offenders in New Jersey,” Annual Meeting of the Northeastern Political Science Association, Philadelphia, PA (2005)

   Discussant: “Democracy, Constitutionalism, and Administration,” Annual Meeting of the Northeastern Political Science Association, Philadelphia, PA (2005)

   “Invocations of Kafka in American Law: An Empirical Examination,” Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, D.C. (2005)

   Organizer and Chair: “Punishment in a Democracy,” Annual Meeting of the Law & Society Association, Las Vegas, NV (2005)

   “Barred from the Bar: The Process and Politics of Attorney Disciplinary Actions,” Annual Meeting of the Law & Society Association, Las Vegas, NV (2005)

   “The Focus Group Method: Observation—Interaction—Deliberation,” Annual Meeting of the Law & Society Association, Chicago, IL (2004)

   Organizer and Chair: “Interpretivism in Sociolegal Research: Prospects and Problems,” Annual Meeting of the Law & Society Association, Chicago, IL (2004)

   “Justice Discussed: Conceptions of Crime and Punishment in America,” Annual Meeting of the Western Political Science Association, Portland, OR (2004)

   “Beyond the Sentence: Public Perceptions of Collateral Consequences for Felony Offenders,” Annual Meeting of the Northeastern Political Science Association, Philadelphia, PA (2003)

   “The Supreme Court and the Evaluation of Electoral Speech Laws,” Annual Meeting of the Northeastern Political Science Association, Providence, RI (2002)

   “Barred from the Vote: Public Attitudes Toward the Disenfranchisement of Felons,” Annual Meeting of the Northeastern Political Science Association, Philadelphia, PA (2001)

   “A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Market: The Supreme Court and Conceptions of Political Speech in the Electoral Process,” Annual Meeting of the New England Political Science Association, Portsmouth, NH (2001)

   “A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Market: The Supreme Court and Conceptions of Political Speech in the Electoral Process,” Annual Meeting of the Western Political Science Association, Las Vegas, NV (2001)

  REFERENCES

  Milton J. Heumann, PhD
  Political Science
  Rutgers University
  848.932.9265

  Richard K. Matthews, PhD
  Political Science
  Lehigh University
  610.758.3339

  Saladin Ambar, PhD
  Eagleton Institute of Politics
  Rutgers University
  848.932.6778

Quoted in Sidelights: “intimate and entertaining look at fatherhood,”
“rehashed,”
“observes the ways in which his expectations were shaken by reality.”
“valuable tips” i
This Is Not Your Father's Fatherhood: A Comic Memoir

Publishers Weekly. 264.43 (Oct. 23, 2017): p78.
Copyright: COPYRIGHT 2017 PWxyz, LLC
http://www.publishersweekly.com/
Full Text:
This Is Not Your Father's Fatherhood: A Comic Memoir
Brian K. Pinaire. Moonshot, $15 trade paper (214p) ISBN 978-0-692-80299-1
After the birth of his first son in 2004, Pinaire (The Constitution of Electoral Speech Law) decided to take 12 weeks of paid leave offered to him as a professor at Lehigh University--a decision that changed his life, as he details in this intimate and entertaining look at fatherhood. Admitting that he had no intention of "bonding with anything other than my laptop" and cranking out some freelance articles, Pinaire soon realized that the idea of "an easy opportunity to be more productive while also being a 'parent' " was "a completely stupid notion." After paternity leave, he left his full-time job'. Fortunately he decided to keep notes on his growth as a parent and a father, and shares his experiences through humorous anecdotes and observations as he attempts to "make sense of modern fatherhood." Pinaire is at his best when he observes the ways in which his expectations were shaken by reality, such as his chapter on the discrepancies between what different child-care centers promise, such as "not treating a baby like a package of office supplies." But other sections, such as a sarcastic look at erectile-dysfunction ads geared to fathers, feel rehashed. However, new and younger fathers-to-be will learn some valuable tips from this account of how to handle being a stay-at-home parent. (BookLife)
Source Citation (MLA 8th Edition)
"This Is Not Your Father's Fatherhood: A Comic Memoir." Publishers Weekly, 23 Oct. 2017, p. 78. General OneFile, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A512184223/ITOF?u=schlager&sid=ITOF&xid=81c2caf8. Accessed 20 Feb. 2018.

Gale Document Number: GALE|A512184223

The constitution of electoral speech law; the Supreme Court and freedom of expression in campaigns and elections

Reference & Research Book News. 23.3 (Aug. 2008):
Copyright: COPYRIGHT 2008 Ringgold, Inc.
http://www.ringgold.com/
Full Text:
9780804757249
The constitution of electoral speech law; the Supreme Court and freedom of expression in campaigns and elections.
Pinaire, Brian K.
Stanford U. Press
2008
349 pages
$60.00
Hardcover
KF4770
Many common people judge campaign speeches within the genres of either lies or jokes, and legal scholars have analyzed it within the framework of either free speech or the electoral processes. No one has seriously studied it as a particular intersection between its two doctrinal lines, says Pinaire (political science, LeHigh U.), and he takes up the challenge. In a descriptive rather than normative treatment, he examines what the US Supreme Court has said about electoral speech, and how those rulings have been interpreted and used in the heat of campaign.
([c]20082005 Book News, Inc., Portland, OR)
Source Citation (MLA 8th Edition)
"The constitution of electoral speech law; the Supreme Court and freedom of expression in campaigns and elections." Reference & Research Book News, Aug. 2008. General OneFile, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A183482287/ITOF?u=schlager&sid=ITOF&xid=de72227c. Accessed 20 Feb. 2018.

Gale Document Number: GALE|A183482287

"This Is Not Your Father's Fatherhood: A Comic Memoir." Publishers Weekly, 23 Oct. 2017, p. 78. General OneFile, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A512184223/ITOF?u=schlager&sid=ITOF&xid=81c2caf8. Accessed 20 Feb. 2018. "The constitution of electoral speech law; the Supreme Court and freedom of expression in campaigns and elections." Reference & Research Book News, Aug. 2008. General OneFile, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A183482287/ITOF?u=schlager&sid=ITOF&xid=de72227c. Accessed 20 Feb. 2018.

• Law and Politics Book Review
  http://www.lpbr.net/2008/12/constitution-of-electoral-speech-law.html
  Word count: 1829

  Quoted in Sidelights: “Pinaire’s volume is a worthy read for those interested in legal development,” “This is especially so for individuals seeking a better understanding of how law evolves through the Supreme Court’s expounding of the Constitution.”
  “rough sledding”
  . “For scholars, however … the book has much to offer,” he added. “Few other volumes are devoted to an understanding of how the Supreme Court blends disparate lines of legal thought. It is a welcome addition to the literature.”
  Law and Politics Book Review
  Sponsored by the Law and Courts Section of the American Political Science Association.

  THE CONSTITUTION OF ELECTORAL SPEECH LAW: THE SUPREME COURT AND THE FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION IN CAMPAIGNS AND ELECTIONS
  by Brian K. Pinaire. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 2008. 368pp. Cloth $60.00. ISBN: 9780804757249.

  Reviewed by Thomas G. Walker, Department of Political Science, Emory University. Email: polstw [at] emory.edu.

  pp.1135-1138

  Brian Pinaire, a Lehigh University political scientist, has produced an intriguing volume that traces the constitutional development of freedom of speech within the context of campaigns and elections. In doing so Pinaire explains the process by which two seemingly distinct areas of the law (the individual’s right to freedom of expression and the government’s authority to regulate elections) have become intertwined. The confluence of these two jurisprudential streams occurred as the Supreme Court struggled with the often-competing values of protecting political speech and guaranteeing the integrity of the electoral process. The book is divided into two sections. In the first, Pinaire develops the theoretical concepts and relationships that guide his understanding of electoral speech law. This is followed by four case studies, or “constitutional episodes,” in which Pinaire uses selected Supreme Court decisions to illustrate his theoretical argument.

  The author first identifies two constituent concepts, “the marketplace of ideas” and “electoral superintendence,” that underscore the themes running throughout his analysis. The marketplace of ideas metaphor, of course, was introduced into our constitutional conversations by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. in his dissenting opinion in ABRAMS v. UNITED STATES (1919). Holmes wrote that “the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market . . . . That at any rate is the theory of our Constitution.” The supporters of this view believe that society is best served when expression, especially political expression, is left unfettered by government.

  By electoral superintendence, Pinaire refers to the Supreme Court’s role as a guardian of the citizens’ right to free and fair elections. Beginning as early as the first White Primary cases (e.g., NIXON v. HERNDON, 1927) and accelerating after BAKER v. CARR (1962), the Court has embraced the task of serving as a referee in the political process. This has been especially so when questions of electoral inequality and issues of real or perceived corruption have been raised.

  The Supreme Court’s early decisions on electoral speech emphasized a classic conception of free expression that approximated Holmes’ notion of the marketplace of ideas. This position rests on the belief that more speech is preferable to less speech. Or, as the dissenting Justice Scalia stated in McCONNELL v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION (2003), [*1136] “Given the premises of democracy, there is no such thing as too much speech.” This conception assumes that truth will most readily emerge from an uninhibited exchange of ideas and that any regulation of the marketplace is seen as unnecessary paternalism.

  The classic position received its first serious challenges in the reapportionment cases of the 1960s and the campaign finance controversies that emerged in the 1970s. Here the Supreme Court confronted questions of participatory equality arising from the realization that institutional rules and resource differences may make the marketplace of ideas an arena in which not everyone can participate equally. The justices also began expressing a concern not only for the rights of the speaker but also of the audience (see, for example, RED LION BROADCASTING v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, 1969).

  The recognition that imbalances emerge in the electoral process led various policymakers, scholars, and judges to argue the necessity of regulating campaigns and elections. As Byron White wrote for a six-justice majority in the ballot access case of BURDICK v. TAKUSHI (1992), “Common sense, as well as constitutional law, compels the conclusion that the government must play an active role in structuring elections; ‘as a practical matter there must be a substantial regulation of elections if they are to be fair and honest and if some sort of order, rather than chaos, is to accompany the democratic processes.’” With such decisions the Court acknowledged government’s custodial role over the institutions and processes through which elections take place. Often the resulting regulations allow the interests of equality and electoral integrity to trump the free speech values promoted by the free marketplace conception of political expression.

  Consequently, three different views of electoral law have emerged: the classic conception, the equality conception, and the custodial conception. In examining how these competing approaches influence constitutional development, Pinaire examines four rhetorical modes of argument that the justices have used to express their sincere as well as strategic preferences. The “historical mode” advances the importance of nation’s deeply held traditions and values. It interprets government efforts to regulate electoral speech in light of the longstanding beliefs of the American people, many of which date back to the Founding. The “empirical mode” places an emphasis on data and the inferences that can be drawn from quantitative evidence. In campaign finance cases, for example, arguments advanced from this perspective would examine the amounts, sources, and recipients of money contributed and derive inferences about the influence of those funds on the electoral process. The “aspirational mode” pays heed to the goals of a self-governing people, seeking the proper relationship between political speech and the ideals of a representative government. In this rhetorical mode great significance is placed on the capability of citizens in a democracy to evaluate political arguments and make [*1137] political choices. And finally, the “precautionary mode” of argument acknowledges that human and institutional failures on occasion jeopardize the integrity of our democratic processes. It recognizes the necessity of preventive efforts to minimize such events.

  To link these theoretical concepts to the actual decisions of the Supreme Court, Pinaire examines the thirty-nine electoral speech cases decided by Court between 1947 and 2006. He categorizes these decisions into five groups based on the targets of the challenged government regulation: political activists, candidates, campaign finances, newspapers, and political parties. He also classifies the positions taken by each justice who participated in these decisions. The results show that the initial electoral speech decisions were largely considered according to classic conceptions, with equality and custodial positions emerging later. Some justices have been generally consistent in their approach, such as Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas (classic conception). Others have demonstrated sharp breaks in their patterns. For example, both David Souter and Sandra Day O’Connor began their careers usually relying on a classic approach but later switched allegiance to a more custodial position.

  Pinaire’s analysis of the justices’ behavior leads him to argue that jurists view campaign and election speech much differently than expression rights exercised in other settings. Taking strong issue with attitudinalists, Pinaire rejects the view that liberal/conservative measures of justices’ preferences can explain electoral speech outcomes. Instead, speech within the electoral context is unique because of its role in the political decision making of a self-governing people. As a consequence, Pinaire argues that only a more nuanced approach can effectively deal with the interwoven interests of both political speech freedoms and the need for honest and fair elections.

  The second section of the book consists of four chapters with each containing an in-depth look at a single Supreme Court decision. In selecting his cases, the author’s goal was to identify a representative set of rulings. His final choices were BURSON v. FREEMAN (a 1992 political electioneering case), MCINTYRE v. OHIO ELECTIONS COMMISSION (a 1995 campaign literature disclosure law challenge), BUCKLEY v. AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW FOUNDATION (a 1999 petition regulation case), and NIXON v. SHRINK MISSOURI GOVERNMENT PAC (a 2000 campaign finance decision). The cases varied not only in subject matter, but also in court of origin and decisional outcome. The case studies rely on archival research (legal documents, journalistic accounts, court opinions) as well as interviews with key individuals who participated in the cases. The chapters focusing on these four “constitutional episodes” apply Pinaire’s theoretical concepts and carefully lead the reader from the origins of the dispute through the Supreme Court’s opinion deciding the case. The analysis explores the conceptual constituents, the rhetorical modes, and the cognitive contours that shaped the Court’s [*1138] interpretation of the Constitution.

  Pinaire expresses hope that his book will be of interest to a wide variety of scholars as well as to concerned citizens. Realistically, however, THE CONSTITUTION OF ELECTORAL SPEECH LAW is likely have a much narrower audience. Some scholars of the law, especially those who prefer to study the judicial system from a more behavioral or positivist perspective, will not be attracted to the approach Pinaire takes. And few members of the general public will have the necessary background to appreciate the theoretical arguments Pinaire advances.

  Nevertheless, Pinaire’s volume is a worthy read for those interested in legal development. This is especially so for individuals seeking a better understanding of how law evolves through the Supreme Court’s expounding of the Constitution. Readers should be forewarned, however, that much of the material is rough sledding, especially in the chapters that develop theory and concepts. As exemplified by 83 pages of endnotes, the author goes to great lengths to provide rich documentation for his argument. This is a strength of the book, yet at times references and quotations are embedded into the text to a degree that the smooth flow of the argument is interrupted. Moreover, the work is densely written and characterized by complex sentences that too frequently exceed 100 words. For scholars, however, who are steeped in the subject matter and comfortable with Pinaire’s approach the book has much to offer. Few other volumes are devoted to an understanding of how the Supreme Court blends disparate lines of legal thought. It is a welcome addition to the literature.

  CASE REFERENCES:
  ABRAMS v. UNITED STATES, 250 U.S. 616 (1919).

  BAKER v. CARR, 369 U.S. 186 (1962).

  BUCKLEY v. AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW FOUNDATION, 525 U.S. 182 (1999).

  BURDICK v. TAKUSHI, 504 U.S. 428 (1992).

  BURSON v. FREEMAN, 504 U.S. 191 (1992).

  McCONNELL v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, 540 U.S. 93 (2003).

  MCINTYRE v. OHIO ELECTIONS COMMISSION, 514 U.S. 334 (1995).

  NIXON v. HERNDON, 273 U.S. 536 (1927).

  NIXON v. SHRINK MISSOURI GOVERNMENT PAC, 528 U.S. 377 (2000).

  RED LION BROADCASTING v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, 395 U.S. 367 (1969).

  © Copyright 2008 by the author, Thomas G. Walker.

Word Count