United States, Georgia, Clarke County, Athens, 33.96095, -83.37794Rodrigues, Usha2015-07-01<p>Originally uploaded at SSRN (http://ssrn.com/abstract=2486720).</p><p>The Supreme Court recently held that campaign contributions under $5200 do not create a “cognizable risk of corruption.” It was wrong. This Essay describes a nexus of timely contributions and special-interest legislation. In the most noteworthy case, a CEO made a first-time $1000 donation to a member of Congress. The next day that representative introduced a securities bill tailored to the interests of the CEO’s firm.</p> <p>Armed with this real-world account of how small-dollar campaign contributions coincided with favorable legislative action, the Essay reads McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission with a critical eye. In McCutcheon the Supreme Court assumed that small-dollar donations do not pose a risk of corruption, and accordingly struck down aggregate contribution limits on the theory that the base limit of $5200 provides enough of a bulwark against corruption. This Essay suggests otherwise. The fact that the price of corruption is lower than commonly understood has fundamental repercussions for campaign finance law.</p>McCutcheon v. FEC -- election law -- Buckley v. Valeo -- campaign contributions -- campaign finance -- Federal Election Campaign Act -- JOBS Act -- corruption -- Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 -- SecondMarket -- Wawa -- shareholder registration thresholds -- Section 12(g) -- Election Law -- Law and Politicsapplication/pdfhttp://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/University of Georgia. School of LawLaw--Study and teachingUniversity of Georgia--FacultyThe Price of CorruptionText