Case Study: Issue: Takings Clause, Campaign Finance Laws, Commerce Clause

Essay by glengemUniversity, Bachelor'sA-, January 2004

download word file, 5 pages 3.7

Case Study:

For those of you unfamiliar with the F.I.R.A.C Method of coming to conclusions regarding case studies of business law, first the person must state the fact, then the issues, the Law and finally show how that law applies and conclude on behalf of either side.


Solo Inc made contributions to support pending Alaska State ballot initiative to increase taxes to support the Alaska State university. It also used company resources to suport the ballot initiative and in so doing violated the statute put into affect on January 1, 2001 called the "Campaign Financing Reform Act" which prohibited corporations doing business within the state contributing to or soliciting contributions for any purpose which would influence the vote on any question submitted to the voters other than ones materially affecting any of the property, business or assets of the corporation.


Did Solo Inc violate the Campaign Finance Reform Act?


Campaign Finance Reform Act - No Corporate Entity shall contribute or solicite contributions for any purpose that would influence the vote on any question submitted for the voters.

Full Faith and Credit Clause - It ensures that rights established under deeds, wills, contracts and the like in one state will be honored by other states.(Article 4)

Article 1 Section 8 - Commerce Clause - To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes; (Article 1)

5th and 14 ammendment Takings Clause - Two questions: if the 5th amendment was sufficient to decide what was a taking in terms of state action (as shown in Lucas), why was it necessary for the courts to extend the takings clause to the 14th amendment? Also, why was the Court ever able in the first place to apply the 5th amendment takings clause to states?...