{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.019202363367799114, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0014771048744460858, 'mean_word_length': 5.647058823529412, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Whither Campaign Finance Jurisprudence?

Chapter 7 offers a discussion of the main results and a consideration of the political, policy, and jurisprudential implications of the study. It deliberates what happens in instances like this—when the Supreme Court fosters the construction of an entire edifice of laws and regulations that limit a fundamental right (free speech) based on an erroneous set of assumptions about political opinion and behavior. The role of social science in court decisions—particularly in the context of informing behavioral assumptions—is emphasized, along with a particular call for social scientists to investigate further the Buckley Court’s model.