Timothy K. Kuhner

Bio: Timothy K. Kuhner is an academic researcher from University of Auckland. The author has contributed to research in topics: Democracy & Politics. The author has an hindex of 6, co-authored 18 publications receiving 108 citations. Previous affiliations of Timothy K. Kuhner include Georgia State University & Duke University.

The Foreign Source Doctrine: Explaining the Role of Foreign and International Law in Interpreting the Constitution

Abstract: This article brings much-needed precision to the debate over the Supreme Court's use of foreign and international law to interpret the Constitution. The debate has been both imprecise, ignoring the subtleties of the phenomenon at issue, and prematurely abstract, jumping to theoretical and ideological levels without first looking to establish the specifics. By focusing on the particular areas of constitutional text subjected to foreign sources and the longstanding lines of caselaw upon which the use of foreign sources builds, this article reveals that a doctrine has crystallized around the use of foreign sources. The doctrine specifies the precise uses to be made of foreign sources and the amount of authority to be bestowed upon them, and, consequently, provides a foundation upon which sensible theoretical and ideological inquiries could be based. In sum, this article tells a story that needs to be heard, exposes the constitutional traditions underlying what is commonly but wrongly treated as a practice of activist judges, and sets the stage for productive social discourse on an important constitutional practice.

Democracy by the Wealthy: Campaign Finance Reform as the Issue of Our Time

Abstract: The consensus among most Americans that there is too much money in politics should represent a powerful call for action. Yet campaign finance reform is notoriously tricky to pull off. Our campaign finance system is intricate and complex, and any popular reform effort must account for the jurisprudence that nurtures the system in the first place. The U.S. Supreme Court has issued a number of controversial campaign finance decisions in recent years that have buttressed the role of money in American politics, legalizing the abuses that most Americans deplore. As a result of these rulings, the role of big money in politics has grown, the system has become more resistant to change, and popular frustration has risen. In a 2016 poll, nearly 95 percent of Americans stated that legislators are more attentive to wealthy donors than voters. A solid 80 percent added that the problem is “worse now than at any other time in their lives.” Essentially the same portion of respondents from both major parties — 81 percent of Democrats and 79 percent of Republicans — said that they want their representatives to cross party lines in order to reduce the influence of money in politics. This rare example of bipartisan agreement in today’s political climate points to something profound. Though Americans may be divided, they come together on the essential questions concerning their democracy. As Abraham Lincoln said in his Gettysburg Address, the United States stands for a system of government of the people, by the people, and for the people. However, when elections come under the dominion of a small class of individuals and interest groups, however, Americans perceive a government of the wealthy, by the wealthy, and for the wealthy. Do we want democracy by the people or democracy by the wealthy? That is the issue bound up in campaign finance reform. Though public support for campaign finance reform is overwhelmingly bipartisan, surveys suggest that Americans know very little about campaign finance law — and this little about the options for improving it. This introductory chapter to DEMOCRACY BY THE PEOPLE: REFORMING CAMPAIGN FINANCE IN AMERICA aims to familiarize Americans with our campaign finance system. We believe if the influence of money on politics were reduced, the voices and efforts of ordinary citizens would not be as easily countered by special interest groups and expensive ad campaigns. Understood in this context, our book concerns the fate of American democracy in our time, and its goal is to restore to the United States a form of government consistent its democratic ideals. The book’s center of gravity lies in the American people and their long experience with self-government. within our book's pages, we sought to bring together reform proposals from leading election law scholars who understand the intricacies of American campaign finance law and have written extensively about it. In bringing together these contributors, we were inspired by the belief that scholars can play a critical role in changing politics by connecting public demand with powerful ideas. Our hope in offering the many solutions put forth by our contributors is to provide a blueprint for social change in the United States — indeed, many blueprints. We hope that through the ideas found in our volume, Americans will be able to take a step toward restoring the belief among their fellow citizens that having a meaningful democracy is still possible. When it comes to our campaign finance system, it is high time for American citizens to stand up and demand change. Our book provides a number of unique proposals for how such change can be achieved.

Conclusion: inequality, corruption, and climate change - rethinking election law in the twenty-first century

Abstract: This chapter argues for a fundamental restructuring of election law in order to address the political entrenchment of concentrated capital. That entrenchment arises from global trends in campaign and party finance, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and influence trading that systematically skew political ideology, elections, political appointments, mass media coverage, social media messaging, law-making, and policy-making. Particularly egregious effects of this undue political influence of private wealth include rising levels of economic inequality and ecological destruction. Reconceptualized as part of the struggle against inequality, corruption, and climate change, this chapter suggests that the abolition of private control over the means of political production should be the first priority of any progressive agenda. Unless democratic legitimacy and integrity are guaranteed through a transformation in ideology and legal structure, it is highly unlikely that political, economic, and ecological systems will survive the twenty-first century.

Current index to legal periodicals

Abstract: American Bankruptcy Institute Law Review 17 Am. Bankr. Inst. L. Rev., No. 1, Spring, 2009. Boston College Law Review 50 B.C. L. Rev., No. 3, May, 2009. Boston University Public Interest Law Journal 18 B.U. Pub. Int. L.J., No. 2, Spring, 2009. Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution 10 Cardozo J. Conflict Resol., No. 2, Spring, 2009. Cardozo Public Law, Policy, & Ethics Journal 7 Cardozo Pub. L. Pol’y & Ethics J., No. 3, Summer, 2009. Chicago Journal of International Law 10 Chi. J. Int’l L., No. 1, Summer, 2009. Colorado Journal of International Environmental Law and Policy 20 Colo. J. Int’l Envtl. L. & Pol’y, No. 2, Winter, 2009. Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts 32 Colum. J.L. & Arts, No. 3, Spring, 2009. Connecticut Public Interest Law Journal 8 Conn. Pub. Int. L.J., No. 2, Spring-Summer, 2009. Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy 18 Cornell J.L. & Pub. Pol’y, No. 1, Fall, 2008. Cornell Law Review 94 Cornell L. Rev., No. 5, July, 2009. Creighton Law Review 42 Creighton L. Rev., No. 3, April, 2009. Criminal Law Forum 20 Crim. L. Forum, Nos. 2-3, Pp. 173-394, 2009. Delaware Journal of Corporate Law 34 Del. J. Corp. L., No. 2, Pp. 433-754, 2009. Environmental Law Reporter News & Analysis 39 Envtl. L. Rep. News & Analysis, No. 7, July, 2009. European Journal of International Law 20 Eur. J. Int’l L., No. 2, April, 2009. Family Law Quarterly 43 Fam. L.Q., No. 1, Spring, 2009. Georgetown Journal of International Law 40 Geo. J. Int’l L., No. 3, Spring, 2009. Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics 22 Geo. J. Legal Ethics, No. 2, Spring, 2009. Golden Gate University Law Review 39 Golden Gate U. L. Rev., No. 2, Winter, 2009. Harvard Environmental Law Review 33 Harv. Envtl. L. Rev., No. 2, Pp. 297-608, 2009. International Review of Law and Economics 29 Int’l Rev. L. & Econ., No. 1, March, 2009. Journal of Environmental Law and Litigation 24 J. Envtl. L. & Litig., No. 1, Pp. 1-201, 2009. Journal of Legislation 34 J. Legis., No. 1, Pp. 1-98, 2008. Journal of Technology Law & Policy 14 J. Tech. L. & Pol’y, No. 1, June, 2009. Labor Lawyer 24 Lab. Law., No. 3, Winter/Spring, 2009. Michigan Journal of International Law 30 Mich. J. Int’l L., No. 3, Spring, 2009. New Criminal Law Review 12 New Crim. L. Rev., No. 2, Spring, 2009. Northern Kentucky Law Review 36 N. Ky. L. Rev., No. 4, Pp. 445-654, 2009. Ohio Northern University Law Review 35 Ohio N.U. L. Rev., No. 2, Pp. 445-886, 2009. Pace Law Review 29 Pace L. Rev., No. 3, Spring, 2009. Quinnipiac Health Law Journal 12 Quinnipiac Health L.J., No. 2, Pp. 209-332, 2008-2009. Real Property, Trust and Estate Law Journal 44 Real Prop. Tr. & Est. L.J., No. 1, Spring, 2009. Rutgers Race and the Law Review 10 Rutgers Race & L. Rev., No. 2, Pp. 441-629, 2009. San Diego Law Review 46 San Diego L. Rev., No. 2, Spring, 2009. Seton Hall Law Review 39 Seton Hall L. Rev., No. 3, Pp. 725-1102, 2009. Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal 18 S. Cal. Interdisc. L.J., No. 3, Spring, 2009. Stanford Environmental Law Journal 28 Stan. Envtl. L.J., No. 3, July, 2009. Tulsa Law Review 44 Tulsa L. Rev., No. 2, Winter, 2008. UMKC Law Review 77 UMKC L. Rev., No. 4, Summer, 2009. Washburn Law Journal 48 Washburn L.J., No. 3, Spring, 2009. Washington University Global Studies Law Review 8 Wash. U. Global Stud. L. Rev., No. 3, Pp.451-617, 2009. Washington University Journal of Law & Policy 29 Wash. U. J.L. & Pol’y, Pp. 1-401, 2009. Washington University Law Review 86 Wash. U. L. Rev., No. 6, Pp. 1273-1521, 2009. William Mitchell Law Review 35 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev., No. 4, Pp. 1235-1609, 2009. Yale Journal of International Law 34 Yale J. Int’l L., No. 2, Summer, 2009. Yale Journal on Regulation 26 Yale J. on Reg., No. 2, Summer, 2009.

China’s Turn Against Law

Abstract: Chinese authorities are reconsidering legal reforms they enacted in the 1980s and 1990s. These reforms had emphasized law, litigation, and courts as institutions for resolving civil grievances between citizens and administrative grievances against the state. But social stability concerns have led top leaders to question these earlier reforms. Central Party leaders now fault legal reforms for insufficiently responding to (or even generating) surging numbers of petitions and protests.Chinese authorities have now drastically altered course. Substantively, they are de-emphasizing the role of formal law and court adjudication. They are attempting to revive pre-1978 Maoist-style court mediation practices. Procedurally, Chinese authorities are also turning away from the law. They are relying on political, rather than legal, levers in their effort to remake the Chinese judiciary. This Article analyzes the official Chinese turn against law. These Chinese developments are not entirely unique. American courts have also experienced a broad shift in dispute resolution patterns over the last century. Litigation has fallen out of favor. Court trials have dropped in number. Alternative dispute resolution mechanisms have increased in number. Observing such long-term patterns, Marc Galanter concluded that the United States experienced a broad “turn against law” over the 20th century. China’s shift also parallels those in other developing countries. In recent decades, nations such as India, Indonesia, and the Philippines have resuscitated or formalized traditional mediative institutions. This is part of a global reconsideration of legal norms and institutions imported or transplanted from the West.Despite these similarities with global trends, this Article argues that Chinese leaders’ shift against law is a distinct domestic political reaction to building pressures in the Chinese system. It is a top-down authoritarian response motivated by social stability concerns. This Article also analyzes the risks facing China as a result of the shift against law. It argues that the Chinese leadership’s concern with maintaining social stability in the short term may be leading them to take steps that are having severe long-term effects of undermining Chinese legal institutions and destabilizing China.Last, this Article argues for rethinking the trajectory of Chinese legal studies. Scholars need to shift away from focusing on formal Chinese law and legal institutions in order to understand how the Chinese legal system actually operates and the direction it is heading.

China's Turn Against Law

Abstract: Chinese authorities are reconsidering legal reforms they enacted in the 1980s and 1990s. These reforms had emphasized law, litigation, and courts as institutions for resolving civil grievances between citizens and administrative grievances against the state. But social stability concerns have led top leaders to question these earlier reforms. Central Party leaders now fault legal reforms for insufficiently responding to (or even generating) surging numbers of petitions and protests.Chinese authorities have now drastically altered course. Substantively, they are de-emphasizing the role of formal law and court adjudication. They are attempting to revive pre-1978 Maoist-style court mediation practices. Procedurally, Chinese authorities are also turning away from the law. They are relying on political, rather than legal, levers in their effort to remake the Chinese judiciary. This Article analyzes the official Chinese turn against law. These Chinese developments are not entirely unique. American courts have also experienced a broad shift in dispute resolution patterns over the last century. Litigation has fallen out of favor. Court trials have dropped in number. Alternative dispute resolution mechanisms have increased in number. Observing such long-term patterns, Marc Galanter concluded that the United States experienced a broad “turn against law” over the 20th century. China’s shift also parallels those in other developing countries. In recent decades, nations such as India, Indonesia, and the Philippines have resuscitated or formalized traditional mediative institutions. This is part of a global reconsideration of legal norms and institutions imported or transplanted from the West.Despite these similarities with global trends, this Article argues that Chinese leaders’ shift against law is a distinct domestic political reaction to building pressures in the Chinese system. It is a top-down authoritarian response motivated by social stability concerns. This Article also analyzes the risks facing China as a result of the shift against law. It argues that the Chinese leadership’s concern with maintaining social stability in the short term may be leading them to take steps that are having severe long-term effects of undermining Chinese legal institutions and destabilizing China.Last, this Article argues for rethinking the trajectory of Chinese legal studies. Scholars need to shift away from focusing on formal Chinese law and legal institutions in order to understand how the Chinese legal system actually operates and the direction it is heading.

Global Wealth Inequality

Abstract: This article reviews the recent literature on the dynamics of global wealth inequality. I first reconcile available estimates of wealth inequality in the United States. Both surveys and tax data show that wealth inequality has increased dramatically since the 1980s, with a top 1% wealth share around 40% in 2016 vs. 25–30% in the 1980s. Second, I discuss the fast growing literature on wealth inequality across the world. Evidence points towards a rise in global wealth concentration: for China, Europe, and the United States combined, the top 1% wealth share has increased from 28% in 1980 to 33% today, while the bottom 75% share hovered around 10%. Recent studies, however, may under-estimate the level and rise of inequality, as financial globalization makes it increasingly hard to measure wealth at the top. I discuss how new data sources (leaks from financial institutions, tax amnesties, and macroeconomic statistics of tax havens) can be leveraged to better capture the wealth of the rich.

Debt as Power

Abstract: "Debt as power is a timely and innovative contribution to our understanding of one of the most prescient issues of our time: the explosion of debt across the global economy and related requirement of political leaders to pursue exponential growth to meet the demands of creditors and investors. The book is distinctive in offering a historically sensitive and comprehensive analysis of debt as an interconnected and global phenomenon. Rather than focusing on the historical emergence of debt as a moral obligation, the authors argue that debt under capitalism can be conceived of as a technology of power, intimately tied up with the requirement for perpetual growth and the differential capitalization that benefits ‘the 1%’. Their account begins with the recognition that the histories of human communities and their natural environment are interconnected in complex spatial and hierarchical relations of power and to understand their development we need to not only examine the particularities of a given case, but more importantly their interconnected, interdependent and international relations. Since debt under capitalism is increasingly ubiquitous at all levels of society and economic growth is now the sole mantra of dominant political parties around the world, the authors argue that tracing the evolution and transformation of debt as a technology of power is crucial for understanding the ‘present as history’ and possible alternatives to our current trajectory."