[EL] "A Note on Campaign Finance Reform: Limiting the Right toMake Campa...
David A. Holtzman
David at HoltzmanLaw.com
Sun Aug 28 12:22:27 PDT 2011
The U.S. Constitution is the starting point here (the article is about
electing U.S. Representatives).Under the Constitution, state
legislatures set the time/place/manner rules for those elections,
subject to Congressional override.
There are limitations on the extent to which states can constrain the
right to vote.For instance, a state can't up the voting age from 18 to
29.Or ban men from voting for 100 years or so to make up for the
repression of women.
Since the electorate for USReps must be "the people of the several
[individual] states," a state can't extend the right to vote in USRep
elections to non-residents of the state.
So the Constitution requires a territorial restriction.And it allows a
particular age restriction (min. 18), and a citizenship restriction
too.There's no debate about any of that.
Still, I'd be willing to try a younger voting age in my state.Maybe
non-citizen legal resident voting, too.
And by all means, consider re-examining electing USReps by single-Rep
district.A statewide or regional proportional representation method (in
particular, single transferable vote) would be a more fair and accurate
way of putting together a delegation that represents the electorate.
Opportunities to vote are very infrequent in day-do-day civic life.There
are other ways than voting to participate in government, however.Now
"one person, one vote" (or one 18-yr old citizen, one vote) is
constitutional, but "one person, one dollar" is not.
- dah
--
David A. Holtzman, M.P.H., J.D.
david at holtzmanlaw.com
On 8/28/2011 5:11 AM, Joe La Rue wrote:
> I don't think anyone in this thread has suggested that everyone should
> be allowed to vote wherever they want, regardless of the political
> boundary in which they live. But everyone should be allowed to speak
> freely about candidates, no matter where they are running for office,
> and also to associate with candidates of their choice, irrespective of
> where they live. I'm pretty sure that's what "Congress shall make /no
> /law" requires.
>
> And that's a good thing. Allowing more speech educates the ones who
> will actually cast the votes by providing them with the most
> information possible about the candidates. Don't we want the
> best-informed electorate possible? Of course we do. It seems to me
> that the best way to achieve that is by allowing speech, not working
> to silence it.
>
> Joe
> ___________________
> Joseph E. La Rue, Esq.
> 812-232-2434, ext. 25 (Office)
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any
> attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may
> contain confidential and privileged information or otherwise be
> protected by law. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or
> distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient,
> please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of
> the original message.
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 4:53 AM, Susan Lerner <SLerner at commoncause.org
> <mailto:SLerner at commoncause.org>> wrote:
>
> So, I suppose anyone who wants to vote in an election gets to do
> so, since territorial, age, and citizenship restrictions would be
> invalid as the means by which the government seeks to control
> those who get to participate in government. Or is it only money
> that can't be restricted, while voters can be?
>
> ***************
> Susan Lerner
> Executive Director
> Common Cause/NY
> t: 212-691-6421 <tel:212-691-6421>
> c: 917-670-5670 <tel:917-670-5670>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
> <mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> on behalf
> of JBoppjr at aol.com <mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com>
> Sent: Sat 8/27/2011 11:50 AM
> To: bwright at demos.org <mailto:bwright at demos.org>;
> David at HoltzmanLaw.com; law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> <mailto:law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
> Subject: Re: [EL] "A Note on Campaign Finance Reform: Limiting the
> Right toMake Campa...
>
> Oh, yes, but did I mention Genghis Kahn, Attila Hun and Marie
> Antoinette. Jim
>
> In a message dated 8/27/2011 11:26:01 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> bwright at demos.org <mailto:bwright at demos.org> writes:
>
> Ah, Godwin's law comes into play on the third post,
> but with a refreshing twist - not merely invoking Hitler (that is
> so 1990s), but also King George III, Pol Pot, Caesar and
> "Neapolitan" - yes, the well-known "Emperor of Ice Cream" (see
> Wallace Stevens). A truly chilling point.
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
> <mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>
> [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
> <mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>] On Behalf
> Of JBoppjr at aol.com <mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com>
> Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2011 9:34 AM
> To: David at HoltzmanLaw.com;
> law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> <mailto:law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
> Subject: Re: [EL] "A Note on Campaign Finance Reform:
> Limiting the Right to Make Campa...
>
>
>
> David asks:
>
>
>
> "Is it (the right to contribute, and hence associate) a
> right that can be extended? Or since it's universal to begin with,
> only constricted?"
>
>
>
> There is two views of this. "Reformers," just like the
> King George III, Neapolitan, Caesar, Hitler and Pol Pot, believe,
> as did all governments before ours, that citizens can only
> participate in the government if they get the government's
> permission. This is the premise of this article. Our First
> Amendment was written to reverse this premise -- that the natural
> state of things would be that people are free to participate in
> the government without restriction. So freedom does not have to be
> justified, but restrictions on freedom must be. Failing to grasp
> this requirement of American law makes this article suitable for
> discussion in Russia, but not the USA. Jim Bopp
>
>
>
> In a message dated 8/27/2011 2:58:49 A.M. Eastern Daylight
> Time, David at HoltzmanLaw.com writes:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The abstract says, "Extending the right to make
> contributions in a particular election to groups that do not have
> the right to vote in that election [] violates simple logic, since
> without the right of people to vote there would be no need for
> contributions."
>
> "[S]imple logic," maybe.
>
> But what of the felon, who wants to get the right
> to vote (or otherwise change the law) by getting supportive
> candidates elected?
>
> What of the non-profit seeking to educate
> candidates and voters nationwide in order to elect USReps who
> promise to change a particular law, or stop a particular war?
>
> What of the government worker or private worker or
> student in the district who lives outside the district but is
> affected by district-specific decisions like: what porkmarks will
> come to the district, how gov't contracts will affect the
> district, what the military will do there, what types of events
> the USRep will hold there, who the USRep will hire, how accessible
> the USRep will be? (Or should communication access to USReps be
> limited to CVAP residents of the district?)
>
> What of stockholders in companies similarly affected?
>
> What of people outside competitive districts who
> will lose out if a certain political party gets a majority in the
> House?
>
> What of those seeking to knock a senior USRep from
> office to give their own district's USRep a better shot at
> becoming a committee chair?
>
> What of legal noncitizen residents who are affected
> by the actions of USReps elected by districts drawn in
> consideration of a count of all residents -- supposedly so the
> USReps can represent all residents?
>
> What of non-voting family of the candidates, who
> already have plenty of access and just want to help their kinfolk?
>
> What of the orphan who's not yet old enough to vote?
>
> What of volunteering for campaigns - same restriction?
>
> - dah
>
> p.s. Is it (the right to contribute, and hence
> associate) a right that can be extended? Or since it's universal
> to begin with, only constricted?
>
> <!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->
> <!--[endif]-->
>
>
>
> On 8/26/2011 8:57 PM, Rick Hasen wrote:
>
> "A Note on Campaign Finance Reform: Limiting the
> Right to Make Campaign Finance Contributions without Violating the
> First Amendment" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=22297>
>
> Posted on August 26, 2011 12:36 pm
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=22297> by Rick Hasen
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> William Grigsby, Emeritus Professor in City and
> Regional Planning, University of Pennsylvania, has written this
> draft
> <http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/grigsby-campaign-finance.pdf>
> , which I have posted on my blog. Here is the abstract:
>
> The Supreme Court's decision in Citizens
> United v. Federal Election Commission has made it possible for
> individuals who are not eligible to vote in a particular federal
> election and for organizations, who have no voting rights at all,
> to make unlimited campaign contributions, expanding their
> pre-existing right to make contributions with dollar caps. These
> two groups of contributors without the right to vote already
> outspend eligible voters in some states by an order of magnitude.
> Citizens United will simply widen the difference. The dominant
> role of campaign contributors who are not eligible voters has a
> serious corrupting effect on the federal election system. Since
> candidates and office-holders properly listen to the views of all
> contributors, not just to the views of eligible voters, the ballot
> speech of the eligibles is substantially diluted, if not entirely
> overwhelmed, by the money-speech of the non-eligibles. This is
> true even with respect to donors to independent-expenditure
> campaigns, since their identity will almost immediately become
> known to candidates through disclosure requirements.
> Additionally, their uncapped donations would in some cases be so
> large as to invite at least the appearance of quid pro quo corruption.
>
> Extending the right to make contributions
> in a particular election to groups that do not have the right to
> vote in that election also violates simple logic, since without
> the right of people to vote there would be no need for contributions
>
> Eligibility limits with respect to
> contributions speech should be co-terminus with those for voting
> speech. Since individuals join together in organizations in order
> to make their voice more widely and strongly heard, organizations
> should still be allowed to make campaign contributions but only as
> conduits for donations by persons who are eligible voters in the
> election whose outcome the organizations are attempting to influence.
>
> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D22297&title=%E2%80%9CA%20Note%20on%20Campaign%20Finance%20Reform%3A%20Limiting%20the%20Right%20to%20Make%20Campaign%20Finance%20Contributions%20without%20Violating%20the%20First%20Amendment%E2%80%9D&descriptio
> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D22297&title=%E2%80%9CA%20Note%20on%20Campaign%20Finance%20Reform%3A%20Limiting%20the%20Right%20to%20Make%20Campaign%20Finance%20Contributions%20without%20Violating%20the%20First%20Amendment%E2%80%9D&descriptio>>
>
> Posted in campaign finance
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> | Comments Off
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> David A. Holtzman, M.P.H., J.D.
> david at holtzmanlaw.com <mailto:david at holtzmanlaw.com>
>
> Notice: This email (including any files transmitted
> with it) may be confidential, for use only by intended recipients.
> If you are not an intended recipient or a person responsible for
> delivering this email to an intended recipient, be advised that
> you have received this email in error and that any use,
> dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email is
> strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error,
> please immediately notify the sender and discard all copies.
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> <mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> <mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> <mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
>
>
>
> Notice: This email (including any files transmitted with it) may be
> confidential, for use only by intended recipients. If you are not an
> intended recipient or a person responsible for delivering this email
> to an intended recipient, be advised that you have received this email
> in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or
> copying of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received
> this email in error, please immediately notify the sender and discard
> all copies.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20110828/a1bb6e5b/attachment.html>
View list directory