« Legal Futurism | Main | A Zimmerman Acquittal: Michael Jackson, not Rodney King »

Wednesday, July 03, 2013


According to this CBS story, Dan Balz's book on the 2012 election reports that Mitt Romney was seriously considering selecting New Jersey Governor Chris Christie as the Republican vice-presidential nominee, but was dissuaded by an SEC regulation governing campaign contributions:

In the end, it was money, not chemistry, that kept Christie off the GOP ticket. A "pay to play" regulation from the Securities and Exchange Commission prevented the country's largest banks from donating to candidates and elected officials from states in which big banks were located. If Christie, the governor of New Jersey, were added to the ticket, Romney's campaign would have been barred from accepting any campaign contributions from Wall Street - a critical source of cash for the GOP candidate, formerly a private equity manager.

I found this striking and was curious whether the reg was constitutional, but I can't actually figure out what rule the CBS story is referring to.  I did find this long discussion of the SEC pay-to-play reg, but I can't actually figure out what the story is referring to.  Readers -- any idea?  Is there a rule that stops banks from contributing to home-state candidates?  You were very resourceful about Guthrie.

Posted by Will Baude on July 3, 2013 at 11:45 PM in Current Affairs, First Amendment | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Romney-Christie?:


And then there is the obvious point that Wall Street, even when used metonymically, is not in New Jersey.

Posted by: rob | Jul 5, 2013 7:30:10 PM

No, but the rules could bar money managers (banks, funds, etc.) from participating in the paid management of NJ state funds for two years following a contribution to a Romney/Christie campaign.

Posted by: Thomas | Jul 5, 2013 10:34:15 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.