[EL] Citizens United as precedent

[David A. Holtzman]

I guess there's a "liberal" complement to the "conservative view" (that 
corporations are natural) below: Individuals as individuals would 
naturally choose to be bound by the laws of some sort of democracy, or 
democratic state. (see, e.g., Rawls)So would communities, and 
individuals as members of communities. (see, e.g., Sandel) Moreover, 
it's rational and important to restrain ("properly") people's behavior. 
That's just as rational and important as having "[a] properly restrained 
state."

(You might say that if a state is of the people, state restraints on 
people and state restraints on states all come from the people, and as 
such are of equal importance.)

When I was a law student, Prof. Bainbridge quickly went through the 
argument that people would naturally agree on limited liability, at the 
beginning of his Business Associations course.It didn't sit right with 
me then, but I thought maybe I wasn't paying close enough attention.Now 
I see I probably wasn't sufficiently conceptualizing myself as part of 
the system.

*/"Those would be the contractual terms they would offer to customers - 
limited liability."

/*C'mon! Corporations affect more than themselves and their 
customers.The impact of negligence, recklessness and other malfeasance 
is felt far and wide.(For example, banks' mishandling of mortgages 
damaged a universe far wider than their relationships with their 
customers.) It's a reach to impute limited liability for corporations to 
any natural social contract.

Corporations are artificial.Ok, they might not be directly created by 
laws, but they owe to laws their existence as exceptions from ordinary 
rules of liability.Thus they could not be created without laws.

And they can amass huge amounts of capital -- with particular ease, as 
noted below.They are distinguished in law and abilities from 
partnerships and other associations.Maybe it's just my right brain, but 
I do not feel they are so normal that there shouldn't be special laws to 
regulate their activity.



It may be that the state is reluctant to limit corporations' political 
spending because the people who run the state -- politicians -- enjoy 
the benefits of that spending, and indeed induce and shape it by virtual 
shakedowns.The *naturally preferred* rule, from the corporations' 
perspective, might be: no corporate political activity allowed at all!

[Warren Buffet, and others whose "wealth has come from corporations with 
limited liability" might want to sign on to that rule, but once their 
wealth is out of reach of corporations (no longer a corporate asset), it 
is in a different place.]

The Supreme Court may be "quite correct that corporate speech" -- by 
corporations as currently constituted -- "deserves protection as does 
individual speech."But still, I see no reason law cannot constrain what 
law provides for.States charter corporations, so the question should 
perhaps have been whether federal campaign finance law can preempt and 
limit the States' ability to provide for the creation of pluripotent 
corporations (corporations that can do anything anyone can).

If a State chooses to limit or prohibit political activity by the 
corporations it charters, that should be perfectly acceptable.

Such States might experience a rush to charter therein by businesses 
looking for immunity from election-related shakedowns.



Some people think marriage between two people is a natural state of 
affairs.Yet for legal purposes, States charter marriages.And marriages 
are associations.

If States charter same-sex marriages, and state-chartered associations 
have full Constitutional rights, then the federal government should not 
be able to disfavor or regulate marriages any more than they can 
disfavor or regulate corporations. DOMA cannot be more constitutional 
than BCRA.(Or in the "conservative" world, is there a hierarchy of 
naturalness?Is it 1. opposite-sex marriage, 2. corporation, 3. same-sex 
marriage?)

I'd love to see DOMA fall using Citizens United as precedent.

- dah




On 12/7/2011 6:21 AM, Smith, Brad wrote:
>
> "Corporations are unnatural business entities created by and sustained 
> by law,"
>
> Here we see a fundamental difference in the idea of the role of law.  
> While the beliefs don't fall neatly along ideological lines, to a 
> substantial extent they do and I'll use such a shortcut. Modern 
> liberals tend to see corporations as having been created by law. 
> Conservatives tend to see corporations as created by people, and 
> recognized by law. The corporations division of the Secretary of 
> State's office has never, ever, in any meaningful sense of the word, 
> "created" a corporation; and the corporations that it registers were 
> not created by the state legislature, either (although many state 
> legislatures have actually created a few corporations). The government 
> no more "creates" corporations by registering them than it "creates" 
> houses by recording the deeds.
>
> In this conservative view, epitomized in the scholarship of Larry 
> Ribstein and Steve Bainbridge (to which I will not do justice - blame 
> me, not them), corporations are simply how people do business. There 
> is certainly nothing "unnatural" about two or more people getting 
> together, and pooling their talent and capital, to do business. In 
> many cases, those people would want to do business without risking all 
> of their worldly belongings. Those would be the contractual terms they 
> would offer to customers - limited liability. (That's why I've always 
> preferred the British designation, "Ltd." to our "Inc.") Many 
> potential customers - I would venture to say the overwhelming majority 
> - would be happy to do business on these terms, gaining lower cost 
> while limiting their potential recovery if something goes extremely 
> wrong.
>
> This is a huge boon for the economy, and hence, for the people, for 
> the governed. The same is true of the other signature elements of 
> corporations - ongoing lifespans and easy entry and departure from the 
> group. The law, in this conservative view, is merely doing what the 
> law ought to do - recognizing how people do and wish to transact 
> business (both buyers and sellers), and providing an efficient 
> enforcement mechanism that reduces what would otherwise be high 
> transaction cost. That is merely good lawmaking. It is similar to 
> recording property deeds. Certainly the government could not - or at 
> least as a matter of good policy would not (but given our 
> constitution, probably could not) - condition recording a deed on 
> giving up one's right to political participation in any way.
>
> Thus, the modern liberal sees the corporation flowing from the state, 
> to serve the state's interest in economic growth and prosperity. As 
> such, conditioning those rights on giving up certain forms of 
> political participation seems perfectly legitimate. The conservative 
> sees the corporation existing outside the state, serving the interest 
> of individuals, with the state serving its properly limited role to 
> protect life, liberty, and property by providing a legal regime to 
> enforce the rights that people have and choose to exercise. A properly 
> restrained state cannot condition its legal protection of contractual 
> and property rights on people acquiescing to tyranny, however mild 
> (and this is, granted, quite mild).
>
> Now, of course, some disagree on the scope of contractual and property 
> rights. But even taking a strong positivist approach, the problem is 
> that at root most people would agree with the property and contractual 
> rights of corporations when they are broken down. That is, there is 
> not widespread or even majority opposition to the idea of the 
> corporation in American society - quite the opposite, when the 
> component parts are broken down, there is broad support for the 
> freedom of contract that forms the basis of the corporation.
>
> Meanwhile, those who would try to delineate speech and association 
> rights by the form of organization chosen by groups of people have not 
> been able to show a good fit: that is, why are corporate expenditures 
> more dangerous than expenditures by wealthy individuals; why is it a 
> justification for limiting speech that a corporation has limited 
> liability but not that Warren Buffet's wealth has come from 
> corporations with limited liability; why is it egalitarian to limit 
> corporate expenditures, which may represent millions of shareholders, 
> but expenditures by wealthy individuals are not limited; why should 
> foundations, such as Carnegie, Joyce, and Pew, be able to make large 
> expenditures to influence public policy; and so on?
>
> There are, I think, answers to all of these questions, in the sense 
> that one can argue (and many do) that wealthy individuals should not 
> be able to contribute large sums, or even that foundations should be 
> more limited in trying to influence public policy. One might even 
> argue that inheritances cannot be used for public policy discussion 
> (perpetual life and all that). But none of these arguments really turn 
> on the corporate form as the basis for making a distinction.
>
> In summary, the Court is quite correct that corporate speech deserves 
> protection as does individual speech. Regulatory advocates might argue 
> that this form of advancing speech does not generally deserve the 
> protection the Court has given it, but that's different from arguing 
> that corporations are in some way uniquely worthy of muzzling.
>
> And that would, of course, be a different argument from one about 
> foreign contributors. There, as Mark notes, the argument turns more on 
> a Lockean concept of body politic.
>
> Brad Smith
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu 
> [law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] on behalf of David A. 
> Holtzman [David at HoltzmanLaw.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 07, 2011 2:58 AM
> *To:* law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] Citizens United as precedent
>
> 1. I was also wondering why Fred inserted "non-voting" here.Yes, that 
> suggests extending the logic to minors, many felons (of all stripes -- 
> violence, moral turpitude, pharmacology, etc.), and non-citizen 
> residents including the Bluman plaintiffs.And how about citizens who 
> have not registered to vote?Or people who are registered to vote but 
> do not actually vote in the election at issue?Like, Mark, I don't 
> think regulation of one's political contributions or expenditures has 
> to be tied to one's status as a voter.
>
> 2. I think Mark's remark further below about "combinations of ... 
> persons such as corporations" contains an error.Corporations are 
> combinations of capital more than of people.The people who put up the 
> capital are protected from personal liability, or accountability (to 
> use a term from democracy), beyond the loss of their investments, for 
> losses incurred or harms that may be caused by the corporations.I 
> thought that was the main feature distinguishing corporations from 
> other associations.(People are never all-in.)
>
> Corporations are unnatural business entities created by and sustained 
> by law, and I see no good reason why law shouldn't be able to saddle 
> them with a birth defect or later-acquired disease that limits their 
> ability to influence their creator.
>
>
> /Optional additional reading:
> /
> 3. I was thinking today that the nonrecourse mortgage serves a similar 
> loss-limiting function for home"owners".(Imagine how much more careful 
> lenders and borrowers would have been if mortgage borrowers actually 
> had to pay off their entire debt even when mortgages go 
> "underwater.")A mortgage's nonrecourse provision is a lot like a 
> corporation's personal liability shield.
>
> [People from Occupy LA were at City Hall today to advocate a 
> "Constitutional amendment ... ensuring that only human beings, not 
> corporations, are endowed with constitutional rights." And some of 
> them were saying that poor (liability-limited, interest-deducting) 
> mortgage borrowers deserve more protection from being evicted by 
> corporations.]
>
> Now I'm thinking that since the government subsidizes home mortgages, 
> it would be fair, and perhaps a prudent protection against conflict of 
> interest (and the appearance of kickbacks or corruption), to prohibit 
> using home mortgage money to influence elections.(Hey that would 
> protect candidates from the sad common practice of mortgaging their 
> own homes for their campaigns!)
>
> Or for that matter, a ban on political contributions and expenditures 
> could, and perhaps should, encumber the proceeds of any government 
> subsidy (including tax deductions for charity, and even the revered 
> and wonderful earned-income tax credit), no?
>
>
> - dah
>
>
>
> On 12/6/2011 9:49 PM, Scarberry, Mark wrote:
>>
>> Fred,
>>
>> With regard to "non-voting corporations":
>>
>> PACs can't vote. The NY Times can't vote either (but it spends money 
>> endorsing candidates). Ditto the Washington Times. Political parties 
>> can't vote; neither can the Log Cabin Republicans organization. 
>> Neither can seventeen year olds. Neither, in many jurisdictions, can 
>> felons. Is a rich felon not entitled to spend money on political 
>> advocacy? A book publishing company can't vote, but presumably it has 
>> the right to publish a book that advocates for or against a candidate 
>> even if the publishing company expects to lose money on the book.
>>
>> The right to vote is probably not a good marker for those who have 
>> the right to engage in political advocacy.
>>
>> With regard to the interest in self-governance:
>>
>> To the extent corporations are controlled by and owned by US 
>> citizens, they may channel or represent the self-governance wishes of 
>> the US citizens. (Yes, I know that some corporation law scholars deny 
>> that shareholders own corporations.) To the extent that corporations 
>> are controlled or owned by others, the corporations' participation 
>> raises much more serious self-governance concerns for me; the persons 
>> who own or control them are not part of our political community, have 
>> no reason to be loyal to the US, and are not entitled to participate 
>> in our self-governance.
>>
>> I do think that some of my views are in serious tension with others, 
>> and I'm trying to work my way through them. I'm particularly troubled 
>> by the conclusion that my views seem to push me to, that a 
>> foreign-controlled but U.S.-based newspaper corporation or publishing 
>> house could be prohibited from engaging in political advocacy. The 
>> Washington Times? A US subsidiary (if there is one) of Oxford 
>> University Press?
>>
>> A final note for list members who disagree with Citizens United: 
>> Would you prohibit the NY Times from publishing a special supplement 
>> that it would insert in its newspapers, listing candidates that it 
>> endorses and giving reasons for the endorsements? Such a special 
>> supplement clearly would involve an expenditure (whereas I think some 
>> people have argued that a mere editorial endorsement does not cost a 
>> newspaper anything extra beyond what it would have spent anyway to 
>> publish the paper).
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Mark
>>
>> Mark S. Scarberry
>>
>> Professor of Law
>>
>> Pepperdine Univ. School of Law
>>
>> Malibu, CA 90263
>>
>> (310) 506-4667
>>
>> *From:*Fredric Woocher [mailto:fwoocher at strumwooch.com]
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 06, 2011 5:51 PM
>> *To:* Scarberry, Mark; law-election at uci.edu
>> *Subject:* RE: [EL] Citizens United as precedent
>>
>> Mark, you asked:
>>
>> "Isn't there a compelling interest in self-government that entitles 
>> us to take steps to prevent excessive influence by foreigners on US 
>> elections?"
>>
>> I'm curious why you think that the answer to this questionis so 
>> clearly "yes," when the answer to the same question, substituting 
>> "non-voting corporations" for "foreigners" is "no," according to 
>> /Citizens United/?
>>
>> Fredric D. Woocher
>>
>> Strumwasser & Woocher LLP
>>
>> 10940 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 2000
>>
>> Los Angeles, CA 90024
>>
>> fwoocher at strumwooch.com <mailto:fwoocher at strumwooch.com>
>>
>> (310) 576-1233
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> *From:*law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu 
>> [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] *On Behalf Of 
>> *Scarberry, Mark
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 06, 2011 4:46 PM
>> *To:* law-election at uci.edu
>> *Subject:* Re: [EL] Citizens United as precedent
>>
>> A question about the scope of a prohibition on foreign spending to 
>> influence US elections: Suppose a foreign national places an ad in a 
>> foreign magazine that is published outside the US and mailed to 
>> subscribers in the US. The ad urges readers to vote to re-elect 
>> President Obama. Would list members favor interception of all copies 
>> of that issue of the magazine to prevent them from being read in the 
>> United States? What about confiscation of copies of the magazine from 
>> the shelves of stores in the US? Would we try to prevent Americans 
>> from viewing such an ad on BBC Television (in the US via cable TV) 
>> that was paid for a British subject? (Is the proper term still 
>> "subject" rather than "citizen"?) Should we have an Internet firewall 
>> to intercept Internet ads from other countries? Would we want to 
>> arrest someone who paid for such an ad if the person then came to the 
>> US? I think these questions suggest that it would be difficult (or 
>> unwise) to try to prevent such expenditures outside the US. It makes 
>> sense that the focus of such regulation should be on expenditures in 
>> the US or expenditures by foreign nationals present in the US.
>>
>> On the interest point: Isn't there a compelling interest in 
>> self-government that entitles us to take steps to prevent excessive 
>> influence by foreigners on US elections? We might expel a foreign 
>> diplomat who tried to influence our elections, right? Independent 
>> expenditures by US persons (including combinations of US persons such 
>> as corporations with little or no foreign stock ownership) of course 
>> influence US elections; that's the purpose of such expenditures, and 
>> it's a perfectly legitimate purpose, unless you accept a leveling of 
>> the playing field rationale for limiting independent expenditures, 
>> which the Court has rejected. The analysis then focuses on notions of 
>> self-government, allowing Citizens United to be distinguished 
>> persuasively, in my view.
>>
>> Mark S. Scarberry
>>
>> Pepperdine Univ. School of Law
>>
>> Malibu, CA 90263
>>
>> (310)506-4667
>>
>> *From:*law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu 
>> [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] *On Behalf Of 
>> *Rick Hasen
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 06, 2011 3:17 PM
>> *To:* JBoppjr at aol.com
>> *Cc:* law-election at uci.edu
>> *Subject:* [EL] Citizens United as precedent
>>
>> Ah, now I see.  I think you are correct on this point Jim.  The word 
>> should not have been "precedent" but "logic" or "rational consequences."
>>
>> It is not much of a defense, but those words got introduced in the 
>> editing process.  (My original draft began: "Next week Supreme Court 
>> justices will meet in a private conference to consider whether to 
>> hear an appeal challenging the federal law which bars most foreign 
>> individuals, entities, and governments from spending money to 
>> influence U.S. elections.  Whether or not the Court sets the case for 
>> a full hearing, it is likely to conclude that the law does not 
>> violate the First Amendment rights of foreigners to participate in 
>> our elections.  That's the right result, but it is one that 
>> demonstrates the illogic and incoherence of the Supreme Court's 
>> recent /Citizens United v. FEC/ decision upholding similar rights for 
>> corporations.  The case before the Court, /Bluman v. FEC/, concerns 
>> the rights of foreign non-citizens living in the U.S. to spend money 
>> in federal elections, but if it is successful it would open the door 
>> to spending by non-citizens living outside the U.S., foreign 
>> corporations, and even foreign governments.  There are many good 
>> reasons for federal law to bar such election-related spending by 
>> foreigners, but each runs headlong into the reasoning of the Supreme 
>> Court's /Citizens United /case.  ")
>>
>>
>> Would you care to opine on the issue for the Court to decide?  And 
>> how that rationale might differ from the logic or rational 
>> consequences of Citizens United.
>>
>> Rick
>>
>> On 12/6/11 3:09 PM, JBoppjr at aol.com <mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> Well, that is an issue for the Court now to decide, but to say that 
>> CU decided it somehow that for the Court to uphold the foreigner ban 
>> it must "ignore the precedent of Citizens United" is just flat wrong, 
>> as your question seems to assume.  Jim Bopp
>>
>> In a message dated 12/6/2011 5:34:27 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, 
>> rhasen at law.uci.edu <mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu> writes:
>>
>>     What's the compelling interest Jim?  I contend in my piece that
>>     "national security" and excluding foreigners from devices of
>>     democratic decisionmaking both boil down in the campaign finance
>>     context to one of the rejected compelling interests (corruption,
>>     antidistortion) rejected as a limitation on corporate independent
>>     expenditures in CU.
>>
>>     On 12/6/11 12:10 PM, JBoppjr at aol.com <mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>     Rich's comment could not be more wrong:
>>
>>     /Whether or not the Court sets the case for a full hearing, it is
>>     likely to conclude that our current law does not violate the
>>     First Amendment rights of foreigners. That would be the right
>>     result. But it would require ignoring the precedent of //Citizens
>>     United v. FEC/
>>     <http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZS.html>/, which
>>     upheld similar rights for corporations/
>>
>>     The analysis of CU requires (1) is the speech protected by the
>>     First Amendment, (2) if so is there a compelling governmental
>>     interest sufficient to abridge it.   Regarding CU's (1), yes
>>     speech by foreigners, aliens, and the Red Chinese Army is speech
>>     protected by the First Amendment.  However, re CU's (2) CU did
>>     not decide if there is a compelling governmental interest
>>     sufficient to abridge the speech of foreigners.  That would be
>>     the question before the court not addressed in CU.
>>
>>     So CU applies and use of its analysis is perfectly consistent
>>     with a holding that the speech of the Red Chinese Army may be
>>     banned.  Jim Bopp
>>
>>     In a message dated 12/6/2011 12:21:25 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
>>     rhasen at law.uci.edu <mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu> writes:
>>
>>
>>             "Will Foreigners Decide the 2012 Election? The Extreme
>>             Unintended Consequences of Citizens United."
>>             <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26137>
>>
>>         Posted onDecember 5, 2011 9:18 pm
>>         <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26137> by Rick Hasen
>>         <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>
>>         I have written this commentary
>>         <http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/98162/citizens-united-foreign-money>
>>         for /The New Republic/.  It begins:
>>
>>             Let's say that the leader of a foreign country, one with
>>             military or economic interests adverse to the United
>>             States, took a look at our 2012 elections and decided to
>>             spend millions of dollars in hopes of determining which
>>             party held control over the House, the Senate, or the
>>             White House. Most of us would consider that scenario
>>             highly distressing, to say the least. And current federal
>>             law does indeed bar most foreign individuals, entities,
>>             and governments from spending money to influence U.S.
>>             elections and contributing to candidates.
>>
>>             This isn't a law that inspires much opposition in
>>             Washington: Neither party asserts that foreigners have a
>>             First Amendment right to participate in our elections.
>>             But according to the twisted logic of the Supreme Court's
>>             recent decision in /Citizens United v. FEC
>>             <http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZS.html>/,
>>             the law's constitutionality has been called into question.
>>
>>             Fortunately, the Court may be wise enough not to use its
>>             own flawed decision as a future roadmap. On Friday,
>>             Supreme Court justices will meet in a private conference
>>             to consider
>>             <http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/11-275.htm>
>>             whether to hear /Bluman v. FEC
>>             <https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2010cv1766-37>/,
>>             a case that concerns the rights of foreign non-citizens
>>             living in the U.S to spend money in U.S.
>>             elections. Whether or not the Court sets the case for a
>>             full hearing, it is likely to conclude that our current
>>             law does not violate the First Amendment rights of
>>             foreigners. That would be the right result. But it would
>>             require ignoring the precedent of /Citizens United v. FEC
>>             <http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZS.html>/,
>>             which upheld similar rights for corporations.
>>
>>         it concludes:
>>
>>             In their
>>             <http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/bluman-js.pdf>
>>             briefs
>>             <http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/Bluman-Opp-to-Motion-to-Dismiss-or-Affirm.pdf>
>>             before the Supreme Court, the /Bluman /plaintiffs point
>>             to some of my earlier writing
>>             <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1620576>
>>             noting the contradiction between the logic of /Citizens
>>             United/ and the government's position in this
>>             case. They---though not most of the campaign finance
>>             deregulation lobby, which (aside from the Institute for
>>             Justice
>>             <http://www.scribd.com/doc/67591387/Bluman-v-FEC-amicus-brief>)
>>             has sat out the case---urge the Court to hear the case,
>>             rather than simply affirm the lower court, to bring
>>             additional coherence to the law. But what the current
>>             challenge makes clear is that the Supreme Court has
>>             erred---not in its failure to extend election spending
>>             rights to foreign nationals, but in the faulty reasoning
>>             behind its decision in /Citizens United/.
>>
>>         <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D26137&title=%E2%80%9CWill%20Foreigners%20Decide%20the%202012%20Election%3F%20The%20Extreme%20Unintended%20Consequences%20of%20Citizens%20United.%E2%80%9D&description=>
>>
>>         Posted incampaign finance
>>         <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> |Comments Off
>>
>>
>>             "The Broken System of Campaign Finance"
>>             <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26134>
>>
>>         Posted onDecember 5, 2011 9:02 pm
>>         <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26134> by Rick Hasen
>>         <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>
>>         The /San Diego Union Tribune/ offers this editorial
>>         <http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/dec/05/the-broken-system-of-campaign-finance/>.
>>
>>         <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D26134&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20Broken%20System%20of%20Campaign%20Finance%E2%80%9D&description=>
>>
>>         Posted incampaign finance
>>         <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> |Comments Off
>>
>>
>>             "Mapping the Future: Chandler's seat is focus of
>>             redistricting in Kentucky, but Democrats may want more"
>>             <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26131>
>>
>>         Posted onDecember 5, 2011 8:39 pm
>>         <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26131> by Rick Hasen
>>         <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>
>>         The Fix reports
>>         <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/chandlers-seat-is-focus-of-redistricting-in-kentucky-but-democrats-may-want-more/2011/12/05/gIQAlskvWO_blog.html>.
>>
>>         <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D26131&title=%E2%80%9CMapping%20the%20Future%3A%20Chandler%E2%80%99s%20seat%20is%20focus%20of%20redistricting%20in%20Kentucky%2C%20but%20Democrats%20may%20want%20more%E2%80%9D&description=>
>>
>>         Posted inredistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>
>>         |Comments Off
>>
>>
>>             Redistricting Back Before the California Supreme Court
>>             <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26126>
>>
>>         Posted onDecember 5, 2011 8:00 pm
>>         <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26126> by Rick Hasen
>>         <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>
>>         Horvitz and Levy's "At the Lectern" blog reports
>>         <http://www.atthelectern.com/redistricting-back-before-supreme-court/>.
>>
>>         <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D26126&title=Redistricting%20Back%20Before%20the%20California%20Supreme%20Court&description=>
>>
>>         Posted incitizen commissions
>>         <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=7>, redistricting
>>         <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6> |Comments Off
>>
>>
>>             "AlterNet: Bullies, Liars and Impostors: How Facebook and
>>             Go Daddy Shield Scott Walker's Online Guerillas"
>>             <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26124>
>>
>>         Posted onDecember 5, 2011 7:57 pm
>>         <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26124> by Rick Hasen
>>         <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>
>>         AlterNet <http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/153306>
>>         on chicanery in the Wisconsin recall and false information
>>         spread over the Internet.
>>
>>         <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D26124&title=%E2%80%9CAlterNet%3A%20Bullies%2C%20Liars%20and%20Impostors%3A%20How%20Facebook%20and%20Go%20Daddy%20Shield%20Scott%20Walker%E2%80%99s%20Online%20Guerillas%E2%80%9D&description=>
>>
>>         Posted incampaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>,
>>         chicanery <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>, recall
>>         elections <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=11> |Comments Off
>>
>>
>>             "Gingrich's Health Care Consultancy: Is It Lobbying?"
>>             <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26121>
>>
>>         Posted onDecember 5, 2011 7:54 pm
>>         <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26121> by Rick Hasen
>>         <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>
>>         NPR reports
>>         <http://www.npr.org/2011/12/05/143146399/gingrichs-health-care-consultancy-is-it-lobbying>.
>>
>>         <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D26121&title=%E2%80%9CGingrich%E2%80%99s%20Health%20Care%20Consultancy%3A%20Is%20It%20Lobbying%3F%E2%80%9D&description=>
>>
>>         Posted inlobbying <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=28>
>>         |Comments Off
>>
>>
>>             "LA's Civic Action Against Dark Money"
>>             <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26119>
>>
>>         Posted onDecember 5, 2011 7:52 pm
>>         <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26119> by Rick Hasen
>>         <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>
>>         /Mother Jones/reports
>>         <http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/12/la-civic-action-against-dark-money>.
>>
>>         <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D26119&title=%E2%80%9CLA%E2%80%99s%20Civic%20Action%20Against%20Dark%20Money%E2%80%9D&description=>
>>
>>         Posted incampaign finance
>>         <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> |Comments Off
>>
>>
>>             "Justice Kennedy Dissents: What Campaign Finance And The
>>             Sixth Amendment Have In Common."
>>             <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26116>
>>
>>         Posted onDecember 5, 2011 7:40 pm
>>         <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26116> by Rick Hasen
>>         <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>
>>         /HuffPo/reports
>>         <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/05/justice-kennedy-dissents-campaign-finance-sixth-amendment_n_1126493.html>.
>>
>>         <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D26116&title=%E2%80%9CJustice%20Kennedy%20Dissents%3A%20What%20Campaign%20Finance%20And%20The%20Sixth%20Amendment%20Have%20In%20Common.%E2%80%9D&description=>
>>
>>         Posted incampaign finance
>>         <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, Supreme Court
>>         <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29> |Comments Off
>>
>>
>>             "Maryland Case May Discourage Political Dirty Tricks"
>>             <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26113>
>>
>>         Posted onDecember 5, 2011 7:36 pm
>>         <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26113> by Rick Hasen
>>         <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>
>>         NPR offers this report
>>         <http://www.npr.org/2011/12/05/143142090/maryland-case-may-dissuade-political-dirty-tricks>
>>         on the robocall case. The case has now gone to the jury.
>>         <http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/jury-begins-deliberations-in-maryland-robocall-case/2011/12/05/gIQAN73nXO_story.html>
>>
>>         <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D26113&title=%E2%80%9CMaryland%20Case%20May%20Discourage%20Political%20Dirty%20Tricks%E2%80%9D&description=>
>>
>>         Posted incampaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>,
>>         chicanery <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12> |Comments Off
>>
>>
>>             "Democrats win fight over Colorado Congressional
>>             boundaries" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26111>
>>
>>         Posted onDecember 5, 2011 9:07 am
>>         <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26111> by Rick Hasen
>>         <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>
>>         /Denver Post/
>>         <http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_19473229>:
>>         "Democrats have won this decade's congressional redistricting
>>         battle. The Colorado Supreme Court this morning affirmed the
>>         ruling of a Denver' chief district court judge, who selected
>>         the Democrats' map after an October trial. The Supreme Court
>>         said in its ruling that a written opinion would be issued
>>         later."  You can find the apparently unanimous court order
>>         here
>>         <http://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Case_Announcements/Files/2011/11SC842-%20Order%20and%20Mandate.pdf>.
>>
>>         <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D26111&title=%E2%80%9CDemocrats%20win%20fight%20over%20Colorado%20Congressional%20boundaries%E2%80%9D&description=>
>>
>>         Posted inredistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>
>>         |Comments Off
>>
>>
>>             Read the Oppositions to Texas Congressional Redistricting
>>             Stay Request <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26106>
>>
>>         Posted onDecember 5, 2011 9:04 am
>>         <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26106> by Rick Hasen
>>         <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>
>>         Here
>>         <http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/pls-cong-opp.pdf>
>>         and here
>>         <http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/malc-cong-opp.pdf>.
>>         The briefing now appears complete, unless Texas files an
>>         optional reply.  Justice Scalia, or the Court, could rule at
>>         any time.
>>
>>         <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D26106&title=Read%20the%20Oppositions%20to%20Texas%20Congressional%20Redistricting%20Stay%20Request&description=>
>>
>>         Posted inredistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>,
>>         Voting Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
>>         |Comments Off
>>
>>
>>             A Repeat of Mid-Decade Redistricting Coming to Texas?
>>             <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26103>
>>
>>         Posted onDecember 5, 2011 8:47 am
>>         <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26103> by Rick Hasen
>>         <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>
>>         Could be.
>>         <http://txredistricting.org/post/13782484051/gop-state-chair-promises-to-push-to-have-legislature>
>>
>>         <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D26103&title=A%20Repeat%20of%20Mid-Decade%20Redistricting%20Coming%20to%20Texas%3F&description=>
>>
>>         Posted inredistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>
>>         |Comments Off
>>
>>         -- 
>>         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 <mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>
>>         http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html
>>         http://electionlawblog.org <http://electionlawblog.org/>
>>
>>
>>
>>         _______________________________________________
>>         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
>>
>>     -- 
>>     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 <mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>
>>     http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html
>>     http://electionlawblog.org <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 <mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>
>> http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html
>> http://electionlawblog.org
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Law-election mailing list
>> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>>
>> -- 
>> David A. Holtzman, M.P.H., J.D.
>> 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.
>>
>
> -- 
> David A. Holtzman, M.P.H., J.D.
> 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.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20111207/843f84dd/attachment.html>