The Courts and Political Speech Rights: A Comparative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dissertation contends that to appropriately address the state of political equality and pursue democratic interest(s) in an increasingly commodified world, we must understand the more complex, socio-legal, and interdependent actions, actors, discourse, laws, and ideas which have grown increasingly important within campaign finance judicial out-comes, as these impact political equality and democratic governance. Consequently, this dissertation examines the largely underexplored factors that shape judicial outcomes and practical application of campaign finance policy which are explanatory of the distribution of electoral participatory power. This electoral participatory power is a key indicator of political equality in democratic nation states. The underexplored factors that I examine include corporate identity as an analytical concept and power resource, commodification of political speech, constitutional constraints, intergovernmental dialogue, regulatory ac-tors, and varied judicial and legislative commitments to democracy. To do so, the thesis utilizes and modifies insights from historical institutionalism, power resources models, neopluralism, and dialogue theory literature, to contribute to knowledge about how and why campaign finance policies and electoral participatory power of individuals, groups, and corporations have changed over time through judicial outcomes, practical administration, and related reforms. Through this demonstration, the analysis of this thesis opens up space to explore and identify sources and modes of gradual institutional change within the context of campaign finance judicial outcomes. Specifically, this thesis documents and critically examines the actions, actors, discourse, laws, and ideas which have permeated judicial conflicts in Canada and the United States over several decades and illustrates how they have determined the scope of corporate constitutional rights and freedoms, potential for money in politics, and the distribution of political equality in these two advanced democracies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".