[EL] [Leg] Super-committee
Daniel Schuman
dschuman at sunlightfoundation.com
Wed Aug 3 19:18:33 PDT 2011
For those interested, the Sunlight Foundation sent a letter today calling
for the committee's activities to be transparent. There aren't many
provisions that allow for the public to see it's work.
http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2011/08/03/opensupercongress-debt-committee-must-be-transparent/
Also, just put together a quick calendar of when legislative activity must
happen in the committee:
http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2011/08/03/debt-ceiling-legislative-action-calendar/
Daniel
Daniel Schuman
Director | Advisory Committee on Transparency<http://transparencycaucus.org/>
Policy Counsel | The Sunlight Foundation <http://sunlightfoundation.com/>
o: 202-742-1520 x 273 | c: 202-713-5795 | @danielschuman
<http://www.facebook.com/sunlightfoundation><http://twitter.com/sunfoundation><http://www.youtube.com/sunlightfoundation><http://sunlightfoundation.com/join/><http://blog.sunlightfoundation.com/feed/rss/>
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 6:56 PM, Toby Dorsey <tdorsey at starpower.net> wrote:
> As I read the legislation, it is not delegating legislative authority. It
> is simply
> creating a special committee that has certain responsibilities, and
> providing
> streamlined consideration of its work. The two houses of Congress are
> empowered by the Constitution to make their own rules. What they are
> doing here is likely modeled after other fast track mechanisms, such as
> fast
> track consideration of trade agreements and streamlined BRAC (base
> realignment and closure) processes.
>
> The media reports of what the bill does is one thing, but what the actual
> bill
> does is another. My initial take, at any rate.
>
>
> ---- Original message ----
> >Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 15:32:29 -0700
> >From: Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu>
> >Subject: Re: [Leg] [EL] Super-committee
> >To: Steve Hoersting <hoersting at gmail.com>
> >Cc: "law-election at uci.edu" <law-election at uci.edu>, law-
> legislation at uci.edu
> >
> > Sorry, resending. I had sent this to the old
> > Legislation listserv address.
> > Rick
> > On 8/3/2011 3:30 PM, Rick Hasen wrote:
> >
> > Steve,
> > I think these are interesting questions. I'm
> > copying folks on the Legislation listserv, where
> > this discussion might be more appropriate. (To
> > subscribe to that listserv, see here:
> > http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/admin/law-legislation).
> > My own quick view of this is that there is nothing
> > at all unconstitutional about this proposal, since
> > the proposal setting up this procedure was duly
> > enacted in legislation meeting the requirements of
> > bicameralism and presentment to the president,
> > with his signature.
> > As to whether it undermines popular sovereignty
> > and whether it is wise legislation, I leave that
> > to others.
> >
> > Rick
> > On 8/3/2011 9:25 AM, Steve Hoersting wrote:
> >
> > Missing from Supercommittee > Superlobbyists >
> > Supercompromise is: Superconstitutional.
> >
> > No doubt that "the supercommittee process has
> > the potential to provide a way around partisan
> > stalemate." But this is its vice, not its
> > virtue. Congress cannot delegate its
> > legislative function away from Congress as a
> > whole. Exceptions to non-delegation,
> > particularly the example of administrative
> > agencies, are inapplicable here. Agencies are
> > granted discretion because they possess
> > expertise. The taxing and spending powers,
> > however, are entirely Congress' domain.
> >
> > Congress also has amendment, debate and
> > filibuster provisions (on one or both sides of
> > the Rotunda). Letting the Congress vote only
> > yes or no on a Supercommittee proposal seems to
> > violate those provisions -- and seems to place
> > an Independent Payments Advisory Board not just
> > in charge of healthcare, but in charge of
> > national spending.
> >
> > I know this is an election law list, and that
> > the lobbying angle in any story is what we'll
> > see emphasized here. Let me suggest that
> > popular sovereignty and effective representation
> > deserve emphasis, as well. After all, those
> > are the reasons we have elections in the first
> > instance.
> >
> > If someone on this election law list were to
> > reply that the Supercommittee proposal is not
> > unconstitutional and does not undermine popular
> > sovereignty, it would not be wasted ink -- or
> > silicon, as the case may be.
> >
> > Steve Hoersting
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 11:40 AM, Daniel Tokaji
> > <tokaji.1 at osu.edu> wrote:
> >
> > “Groups Vie to be Perry Super PAC”
> >
> > Posted on August 3, 2011 by Dan Tokaji
> >
> > The WSJ blog has this post.
> >
> > Description: Share
> >
> > Posted in campaign finance | Comments Off
> >
> >
> >
> > Obama’s Bundlers
> >
> > Posted on August 3, 2011 by Dan Tokaji
> >
> > FoxNews reports here.
> >
> > Description: Share
> >
> > Posted in campaign finance | Comments Off
> >
> >
> >
> > More Commentary on CA Redistricting Plans
> >
> > Posted on August 3, 2011 by Dan Tokaji
> >
> > The LA Times has this op-ed from Harold
> > Meyerson, and the SacBee this one from Dan
> > Walters.
> >
> > Description: Share
> >
> > Posted in redistricting | Comments Off
> >
> >
> >
> > “Supreme Court campaign finance ruling spurs
> > wild ride in Wisconsin”
> >
> > Posted on August 3, 2011 by Dan Tokaji
> >
> > The Washington Times reports here. In
> > related news, Politico has more on AFP’s
> > wrong-date absentee ballot mailer, and the AP
> > has this story on CU’s spending in the
> > recall elections.
> >
> > Description: Share
> >
> > Posted in campaign finance, chicanery |
> > Comments Off
> >
> >
> >
> > Supercommittee > Superlobbyists >
> > Supercompromise?
> >
> > Posted on August 3, 2011 by Dan Tokaji
> >
> > The National Journal, Politico, and Huffpost
> > have stories on the lobbying that’s expected
> > to arise from the debt deal. The health care
> > and defense industries are likely to be
> > especially active, given the reductions in
> > defense spending and Medicare provider
> > payments that will take effect in 2013 if the
> > supercommittee can’t come to an agreement
> > (or if Congress doesn’t approve it).
> >
> > Even for those who tend to worry about the
> > influence of big-money lobbyists, this could
> > actually be a good thing. As I suggested in
> > this post, the supercommittee process has the
> > potential to provide a way around partisan
> > stalemate on deficit reduction. Heavy
> > lobbying by defense and health-care interests
> > — aimed at preventing big cuts that will
> > hurt their pocketbooks – can be expected
> > to make a compromise more likely. To
> > borrow Heather Gerken‘s phrase, this may be
> > a way of harnessing politics to fix politics.
> >
> > Description: Share
> >
> > Posted in lobbying | Comments Off
> >
> >
> >
> > “Unequal Protection: Corporate Control of
> > Politics”
> >
> > Posted on August 3, 2011 by Dan Tokaji
> >
> > Truthout has this excerpt from Thom
> > Hartmann’s book.
> >
> > Description: Share
> >
> > Posted in campaign finance | Comments Off
> >
> >
> >
> > “Redrawing Lines May Go Past 2012″
> >
> > Posted on August 3, 2011 by Dan Tokaji
> >
> > Roll Call has this story.
> >
> > Description: Share
> >
> > Posted in redistricting | Comments Off
> >
> >
> >
> > FEC/NRCC Spat over Disclosure
> >
> > Posted on August 2, 2011 by Dan Tokaji
> >
> > Politico has this report.
> >
> > Description: Share
> >
> > Posted in campaign finance | Comments Off
> >
> >
> >
> > Opinion Upholding PA Voter Registration Law
> >
> > Posted on August 2, 2011 by Dan Tokaji
> >
> > The opinion, which rejects Project Vote’s
> > facial challenge to a law prohibiting
> > per-signature payment for registration
> > workers, may be found here (h/t Richard
> > Winger).
> >
> > Update & clarification: Rick tweets on the
> > case here. I’ve slightly amended my
> > initial post above, adding the word
> > “facial.”
> >
> > Description: Share
> >
> > Posted in voter registration | Comments Off
> >
> >
> >
> > Gov. Haley Signs SC Congressional
> > Redistricting Bill
> >
> > Posted on August 2, 2011 by Dan Tokaji
> >
> > The plan includes a new 7th CD but must be
> > precleared before it can take effect.
> >
> > Update: Hans von Spakovsky and Christian
> > Adams question the state’s decision to seek
> > preclearance from DOJ rather than from the
> > USDC in D.C.
> >
> > Description: Share
> >
> > Posted in redistricting | Comments Off
> >
> >
> >
> > Dishonest Polling in Hawaii U.S. Senate
> > Contest?
> >
> > Posted on August 2, 2011 by Dan Tokaji
> >
> > The Fix has this post on the DSCC speaking
> > out against a poll released by Democratic
> > candidate Ed Case.
> >
> > Description: Share
> >
> > Posted in chicanery | Comments Off
> >
> >
> >
> > “For some political junkies, donating
> > repeatedly is way to get fix”
> >
> > Posted on August 2, 2011 by Dan Tokaji
> >
> > Who knew? Paging Dr. Drew.
> >
> > Description: Share
> >
> > Posted in campaign finance | Comments Off
> >
> >
> >
> > “New voter ID laws subvert democracy and
> > Catholic teaching”
> >
> > Posted on August 2, 2011 by Dan Tokaji
> >
> > An unusual perspective on voter ID from
> > America, the National Catholic Weekly.
> >
> > Description: Share
> >
> > Posted in voter id | Comments Off
> >
> >
> >
> > “There’s Nothing Funny About Colbert’s
> > SuperPAC”
> >
> > Posted on August 2, 2011 by Dan Tokaji
> >
> > So says NPR … giving credence to the idea
> > that it has no sense of humor.
> >
> > Description: Share
> >
> > Posted in campaign finance, election law
> > "humor" | Comments Off
> >
> >
> >
> > “Driehaus wins abortion billboard battles”
> >
> > Posted on August 2, 2011 by Dan Tokaji
> >
> > See this story on former U.S. Rep. Steve
> > Driehaus’ win over an anti-abortion group
> > that ran ads against him that he believed to
> > be misleading. U.S. District Judge Timothy
> > Black’s order reportedly allows Driehaus’
> > defamation lawsuit against the Susan B.
> > Anthony List to proceed.
> >
> > Update: There are three separate orders in
> > the case, available here, here and here.
> >
> > Description: Share
> >
> > Posted in chicanery | Comments Off
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Daniel Tokaji | Professor of Law
> >
> > The Ohio State University | Moritz College of
> > Law
> >
> > 55 W. 12^th Ave. | Columbus, OH 43210
> >
> > 614.292.6566 | tokaji.1 at osu.edu
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Law-election mailing list
> > Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> > http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
> >
> > --
> > Stephen M. Hoersting
> >
> > --
> > Rick Hasen
> > Professor of Law and Political Science
> > UC Irvine School of Law
> > 401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
> > Irvine, CA 92697-8000
> > 949.824.3072 - office
> > 949.824.0495 - fax
> > rhasen at law.uci.edu
> > http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html
> > http://electionlawblog.org
> >
> > --
> > Rick Hasen
> > Professor of Law and Political Science
> > UC Irvine School of Law
> > 401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
> > Irvine, CA 92697-8000
> > 949.824.3072 - office
> > 949.824.0495 - fax
> > rhasen at law.uci.edu
> > http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html
> > http://electionlawblog.org
> >________________>____________________________________________
> ___
> >Law-legislation mailing list
> >Law-legislation at department-lists.uci.edu
> >http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-legislation
> _______________________________________________
> Law-legislation mailing list
> Law-legislation at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-legislation
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20110803/a96a5fce/attachment.html>
View list directory