[EL] [Leg] Super-committee
Daniel Schuman
dschuman at sunlightfoundation.com
Thu Aug 4 07:27:22 PDT 2011
My colleague John Wonderlich responded, but he may not be a member of both
lists, so let me say that we agree with Rick, and are calling for all
official meetings to be public, but not all meetings among officials. (We
aren't trying to impose ex parte rules....)
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 11:26 PM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:
> Daniel,
> I think I agree with all of your proposed disclosure suggestions, but it
> does seem to me that for this committee to be effective, they will have to
> be able to negotiate behind closed doors. If every meeting between
> officials on this super-committee had to be in public (as is common with
> many legislative bodies) it is hard to see how the difficult compromises
> could be made.
> Agreed?
> Rick
>
>
> On 8/3/11 7:18 PM, Daniel Schuman wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
>
> --
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20110804/bd45071e/attachment.html>
View list directory