Thesis
Cash, courts, and constitutions: democratic integrity in political finance law
- Abstract:
- Money in politics is seen as a global, existential threat to democracy and presents unique and difficult challenges for courts when they review political finance regulation. The objective of this dissertation is to develop a normative framework for apex courts, which may guide them reviewing political finance law in a range of constitutional systems. The dissertation thus advances a conception of democratic integrity, which permits considerable legislative choice and appropriately guides courts based on a democratic minimum. Reflecting on the existing rights-structure debate, Part I argues that a new approach should respect the duality of rights and structure in election law, openly mediate between fundamental democratic values, and be based on a richer concept of integrity than that currently in the literature. In developing a theoretical framework that meets these aims, Part II advances three related but distinct strands of democratic integrity: trustworthiness, completeness, and coherence. Trustworthiness describes a democratic system that, through its reliability and honesty, engenders people’s trust or confidence. Reliable democracy depends on the other two strands of democratic integrity, which describe the possession and arrangement of democracy’s core elements of political liberty and political equality, respectively. Meanwhile, honest democracy is concerned with whether there is reasonable transparency and information about democratic processes. As trust or confidence in democracy generally mirrors its trustworthiness, the dissertation shows how public opinion evidence might be used as an indicator for courts before they assess democratic integrity’s objective requirements of reliable and honest democracy. Using this framework, Part III then assesses political finance law jurisprudence in three comparative systems: the United Kingdom, the United States, and Australia. For each system, the dissertation discusses the legal and political context, explores if public opinion evidence justifies greater judicial concern, and identifies ways each system might better achieve democratic integrity’s reliability and honesty requirements.
Actions
Authors
Contributors
+ Rowbottom, J
- Institution:
- University of Oxford
- Division:
- SSD
- Department:
- Law
- Oxford college:
- University College
- Role:
- Supervisor
+ Barber, N
- Institution:
- University of Oxford
- Division:
- SSD
- Department:
- Law
- Oxford college:
- Trinity College
- Role:
- Examiner
+ Tham, J-C
- Institution:
- University of Melbourne
- Role:
- Examiner
+ MLR Editorial Committee
More from this funder
- Funding agency for:
- Du vergier, J
- Programme:
- Modern Law Review Scholarship
- DOI:
- Type of award:
- DPhil
- Level of award:
- Doctoral
- Awarding institution:
- University of Oxford
- Language:
-
English
- Keywords:
-
- Subjects:
- Deposit date:
-
2023-05-01
Terms of use
- Copyright holder:
- Du Vergier, J
- Copyright date:
- 2022
If you are the owner of this record, you can report an update to it here: Report update to this record