[EL] ELB News and Commentary 12/20/11

Tue Dec 20 12:28:43 PST 2011

Jamie, hope you're well this holiday season.

I brought you into this merely as an example of those advocating an
amendment, because I recall you being the bellwether for
FreeSpeechforPeople.org just shortly after the Court issued its Citizens
United opinion.

http://freespeechforpeople.org/videos (Scroll to video 8).

All the best,

Steve

On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 2:10 PM, Jamin Raskin <raskin at wcl.american.edu>wrote:

> Friends--I’m not quite sure how I got dragged into this particular
> skirmish, but I can’t let stand in cyberspace the unprovoked and misleading
> cheap shot that I intend to “alter[] the First Amendment.”   Having just
> received the 2011 Henry Edgerton Civil Liberties Award from the ACLU of the
> Nation’s Capital and fought joyfully for the free speech rights of everyone
> from pro-life picketers to Quaker peace activists and environmentalists to
> right-winger Ralph Forbes to Ross Perot and the SEIU to Ralph Nader and
> high school students facing censorship, I will yield to none of today’s
> self-righteous crusaders for corporate political power who have convinced
> themselves that they are civil libertarians, including Steve Hoersting, in
> my championship of First Amendment rights for all.  (If Steve would like to
> compare his record of First Amendment advocacy and his position on
> essential free speech issues with mine,  I would be only too delighted to
> engage.)  Of course, I absolutely reject the Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling
> that CEO’s have a First Amendment right to take money out of corporate
> treasuries to spend on political advocacy to promote politicians who will
> enrich the corporate bottom line (the only kind of political spending
> consistent with corporate law), and I absolutely favor a constitutional
> amendment to restore two centuries of understanding that private for-profit
> corporations do not enjoy the political free speech rights of the people.
>  But it was the five justices who reached out to decide a question not
> before them in *Citizens United* who altered the First Amendment--not
> me--and they gave no individual citizen a political right to do anything
> with his or her own money that he or she could not already do.  In any
> event, I look forward to  seeing Steve at future ACLU conferences as we
> work on issues of common interest like strengthening the free speech rights
> of public school students, stopping the flag desecration amendment to the
> Constitution,  and defending the separation of church and state against
> people like New Gingrich who want federal marshals to haul federal judges
> in before Congress to account for strong First Amendment decisions like the
> Ninth circuit decision in *Elk Grove v. Newdow* (2002).    I hope this
> sets the record straight and wish happy holidays to all.  --Jamie****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] *On Behalf Of *Steve
> Hoersting
> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 20, 2011 1:17 PM
> *To:* Rick Hasen
> *Cc:* law-election at UCI.EDU
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] ELB News and Commentary 12/20/11****
>
> ** **
>
> I'll repeat this in response to your latest.  "But, really, I see no
> evidence that the Romney campaign has any intent to secure the Republican
> nomination by pledging to reintroduce McCain-Feingold, or to join Jamin
> Raskin in altering the First Amendment."
>
> Thanks,
>
> Steve****
>
> On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:***
> *
>
> I see now that I posted the wrong link to the 1994 Romney speech on
> campaign finance.  It is here and worth watching:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsSGcFZQazQ&feature=player_embedded
>
> A snippet: "But these kinds of associations between money and politics in
> my view are wrong.  And for that reason I would like to have campaign
> spending limits. And to say we are not going to spend more than this in
> certain campaigns, in a campaign for Senator or U.S. Representative and so
> forth because otherwise I think you have money playing far too important a
> role. I also would abolish PACs. You probably have one. I don't like them.
> I don't like the influence of money whether it is business, labor, or any
> other group-- I do not like them."
>
> On 12/20/2011 10:00 AM, Steve Hoersting wrote: ****
>
> Really, Rick: it was an extemporaneous comment on ancillary interview
> topic.
>
> I suppose Romney might have used the word "irrelevant" if he spoke on
> campaign finance issues as often as you do -- to take away the possibility
> of conveying that he advocates legal methods for "get[ting] rid" of
> SuperPACs, after the Supreme Court and DC Circuit have settled the matter.
> I suppose...
>
> But, really, I see no evidence that the Romney campaign has any intent to
> secure the Republican nomination by pledging to reintroduce
> McCain-Feingold, or to join Jamin Raskin in altering the First Amendment.
>
> Steve
>
>
>
>
> ****
>
> On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 12:47 PM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:**
> **
>
> That would be "let's make these Super PACs irrelevant," not "let's get rid
> of the Super PACs", no?
>
> ****
>
>
> On 12/20/2011 9:36 AM, Steve Hoersting wrote: ****
>
> There's no better compliance shop than Patton Boggs; Romney's long-serving
> campaign counsel.  And Jim Bopp was a policy adviser on the 2008 campaign,
> if memory serves, as was my colleague Brad Smith.
>
> I haven't seen the whole snippet, either.  What Romney said for sure is
> Lift the restrictions on campaigns and get rid of these SuperPACs.
>
> My post told you what are those restrictions on campaigns: the soft money
> ban and low contribution limits.  There is no dispute there.
>
> As to the "get rid of these SuperPACs," even I can tell you, having
> counseled party committees and litigated for would-be SuperPACs, that if
> the party committee soft-money ban were repealed SuperPACs would almost
> certainly see a decrease in funding.
>
> Best, Rick,
>
> Steve
>
>
> ****
>
> On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:**
> **
>
> Who has advised Romney over the years on campaign finance?
> Also, I did not see the entire Romney interview, just the snippet in the
> Politico link.  From that snippet, it did not sound like he was talking
> about getting rid of the soft money ban.  He said he wanted to "get rid" of
> super pacs.  So if you have a longer transcript or snippet to show how in
> context "getting rid" of Super PACS does not mean getting rid of them, I'd
> like to see it.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Rick****
>
>
> On 12/20/2011 9:21 AM, Steve Hoersting wrote: ****
>
> If you look at who has advised Romney over the years on campaign finance,
> and listen again to the Morning Joe interview, you have to know Romney
> means that the soft-money ban on party committees and restrictions on
> campaign committees are the problems in campaign finance.  And if I'm
> reading his take correctly, he's right: the soft money ban should be
> lifted, and contribution limits to candidates increased.
>
> A lot of good people have done a lot of good work to bring forth the Super
> PAC (if I do say so myself) -- which is to say, have partially restored the
> First Amendment.  Of the dozens who've spent years working on it, I don't
> know a one who would keep the party committee soft-money ban.
>
> Romney's "Get rid of these SuperPACs," which actually was "*and* get rid
> of these SuperPACs," has to be understood in context.  The big cycles of
> McCain-Feingold were 2006 ... and 2008.  Who thinks this is lost on Romney?
>
> Romney must also understands that, as the soft money ban and low limit to
> campaign committees remains, it will only be SuperPACs that can save him
> from a media megaphone going all all-out to tout his opponent, directly or
> impliedly.  Indeed, those who doubt this should watch Romney presenting
> Letterman's (writers') Top Ten list.  The host could barely let his guest
> finish the bit without taking the liberty of making editorial comments
> surely no one expected from the writers.
>
> Happy Holidays all,
>
> Steve Hoersting
>
>
> ****
>
> On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 11:55 AM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:**
> **
> “69% Say Photo ID Voting Laws Are Not Discriminatory”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26815>
> ****
>
> Posted on December 20, 2011 8:47 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26815>by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> New<http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/december_2011/69_say_photo_id_voting_laws_are_not_discriminatory>Rasmussen poll.
> ****
>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D26815&title=%E2%80%9C69%25%20Say%20Photo%20ID%20Voting%20Laws%20Are%20Not%20Discriminatory%E2%80%9D&description=>
> ****
>
> Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, voter
> id <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9> | Comments Off ****
> “Americans Elect wins third-party spot on California ballot”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26811>
> ****
>
> Posted on December 20, 2011 8:44 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26811>by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> The *LA Times *offers this report<http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-california-americans-elect-20111220,0,4555258.story>.
> A snippet about the group’s refusal to disclose its donors: “Sragow said
> some donors prefer anonymity because they fear retribution for trying to
> ‘open the doors to the political process.’”  As I’ve explained, the
> retribution argument used by Americans Elect is laughable<http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/67965.html>
> .****
>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D26811&title=%E2%80%9CAmericans%20Elect%20wins%20third-party%20spot%20on%20California%20ballot%E2%80%9D&description=>
> ****
>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, third
> parties <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=47> | Comments Off ****
> “FEC Republicans’ Statement on Merkley Ads Highlights Unanimous Vote on
> Coordination” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26808> ****
>
> Posted on December 20, 2011 8:41 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26808>by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> BNA<http://news.bna.com/mpdm/MPDMWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=23887584&vname=mpebulallissues&fn=23887584&jd=a0d0a7h9h2&split=0>:
> “The Federal Election Commission’s three Republican commissioners have
> released a new statement<http://eqs.nictusa.com/eqsdocsMUR/11044310145.pdf>on a two-year-old enforcement case regarding political advertising that
> featured Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.)….Though the Merkley case itself is
> history, the new statement about it highlights a key issue that the FEC
> continues to grapple with: the circumstances in which political ads are
> considered independent of a candidate’s campaign. The FEC commissioners
> deadlocked along party lines on the same issue in a vote at the
> commission’s Dec. 1 meeting. The vote came on an advisory opinion (AO
> 2011-23) requested by American Crossroads (3152 Money & Politics Report,
> 12/2/11<http://news.bna.com/mpdm/display/link_res.adp?fedfid=23887584&fname=a0c9v9f9p0&vname=mpebulallissues>
> ).”****
>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D26808&title=%E2%80%9CFEC%20Republicans%E2%80%99%20Statement%20on%20Merkley%20Ads%20Highlights%20Unanimous%20Vote%20on%20Coordination%E2%80%9D&description=>
> ****
>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> |
> Comments Off ****
> “Romney: ‘Get rid of these super PACs’”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26805>
> ****
>
> Posted on December 20, 2011 8:38 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26805>by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> I’d love to know more<http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2011/12/romney-get-rid-of-these-super-pacs-108150.html>from Mitt Romney as to how he’d like to “get rid” of Super-PACs.  Does
> anyone know if he has any position papers or statements on campaign finance
> reform?****
>
> UPDATE:  Here<http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/december_2011/69_say_photo_id_voting_laws_are_not_discriminatory>‘s
> a 94 video with Romney showing strong support for campaign finance reform.
> He advocates campaign spending limits, and wants to abolish PACs.****
>
> But his position today is unclear<http://campaignmoney.org/blog/2011/12/20/watchdog-group-calls-romney-clarify-position-money-politics>
> .****
>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D26805&title=%E2%80%9CRomney%3A%20%E2%80%98Get%20rid%20of%20these%20super%20PACs%E2%80%99%E2%80%9D&description=>
> ****
>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> |
> Comments Off ****
> “Gableman voted with law firm after receiving free legal services; He cast
> key vote in collective bargaining case”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26802>
> ****
>
> Posted on December 20, 2011 8:29 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26802>by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> The hits just keep on coming<http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/gableman-voted-with-law-firm-after-receiving-free-legal-services-o53gc01-135904063.html>at the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
> ****
>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D26802&title=%E2%80%9CGableman%20voted%20with%20law%20firm%20after%20receiving%20free%20legal%20services%3B%20He%20cast%20key%20vote%20in%20collective%20bargaining%20case%E2%80%9D&description=>
> ****
>
> Posted in conflict of interest laws <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=20>, ethics
> investigations <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=42> | Comments Off ****
> “R.I. Rep. Cicilline gets help in contentious redistricting battle”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26799>
> ****
>
> Posted on December 20, 2011 8:26 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26799>by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> The Fix reports<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/ri-rep-cicilline-gets-help-in-contentious-redistricting-battle/2011/12/19/gIQAEWwz6O_blog.html>
> .****
>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D26799&title=%E2%80%9CR.I.%20Rep.%20Cicilline%20gets%20help%20in%20contentious%20redistricting%20battle%E2%80%9D&description=>
> ****
>
> Posted in redistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6> | Comments
> Off ****
> “Lobbying Your True Love: The True Cost of Twelve Days of Christmas, 2011
> Edition” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26797> ****
>
> Posted on December 20, 2011 8:26 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26797>by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> The Open Secrets Blog reports<http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2011/12/lobbying-your-true-love-christmas-2011.html>
> .****
>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D26797&title=%E2%80%9CLobbying%20Your%20True%20Love%3A%20The%20True%20Cost%20of%20Twelve%20Days%20of%20Christmas%2C%202011%20Edition%E2%80%9D&description=>
> ****
>
> Posted in election law "humor" <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=52>,
> lobbying <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=28> | Comments Off ****
> “Iowa GOP worried by hacker threat to caucus vote”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26794>
> ****
>
> Posted on December 20, 2011 8:17 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26794>by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> AP reports<http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_IOWA_CAUCUSES_HACKING?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-12-19-18-28-32>
> .****
>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D26794&title=%E2%80%9CIowa%20GOP%20worried%20by%20hacker%20threat%20to%20caucus%20vote%E2%80%9D&description=>
> ****
>
> Posted in voting technology <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=40> |
> Comments Off ****
> “Avoiding the Florida Nightmare in 2012″<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26792>
> ****
>
> Posted on December 20, 2011 8:15 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26792>by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> Sundeep Iyer and Lawrence Norden have written this *Roll Call *oped<http://www.rollcall.com/issues/57_77/sundeep_iyer_lawrence_norden_avoiding_florida_vote_nightmare_2012-211184-1.html?pos=oopih>.
> It concludes: “The Help America Vote Act was an important opening salvo in
> the effort to prevent lost votes. But now is not the time to be complacent
> about that accomplishment. We must be cognizant of how recent voting
> changes might lead to lost votes, and we must take all feasible steps to
> ensure that every vote counts in 2012.”****
>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D26792&title=%E2%80%9CAvoiding%20the%20Florida%20Nightmare%20in%202012%E2%80%B3&description=>
> ****
>
> Posted in voting technology <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=40> |
> Comments Off ****
> Why Tuesday? Talks To Republican Candidates in Iowa<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26790>
> ****
>
> Posted on December 20, 2011 8:13 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26790>by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> Jacob Soboroff<http://www.whytuesday.org/2011/12/20/why-tues-ask-the-candidates/>:
> “Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum don’t know why we vote on Tuesday. Mitt
> Romney thinks good candidates will increase voter turnout. And Michele
> Bachmann stands on an apple box when speaking at the podium. Those are a
> few things I learned after three days on the ground in Iowa, home of our
> first-in-the-nation Iowa Caucuses.”****
>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D26790&title=Why%20Tuesday%3F%20Talks%20To%20Republican%20Candidates%20in%20Iowa&description=>
> ****
>
> Posted in voting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=31> | Comments Off ****
> “The Texas Redistricting Case and the Likely Continued Erosion of the
> Section 5 Process” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26786> ****
>
> Posted on December 19, 2011 3:24 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26786>by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> Mike Pitts offers some insightful analysis<http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2011/12/the-texas-redistricting-case-and-the-likely-continued-erosion-of-the-section-5-process.html>
> .****
>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D26786&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20Texas%20Redistricting%20Case%20and%20the%20Likely%20Continued%20Erosion%20of%20the%20Section%205%20Process%E2%80%9D&description=>
> ****
>
> Posted in Supreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>, Voting
> Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15> | Comments Off ****
> “From Citizenship to Voting: Improving Registration for New Americans”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26784>
> ****
>
> Posted on December 19, 2011 3:23 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26784>by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> New Demos publication<http://www.demos.org/publication/citizenship-voting-improving-registration-new-americans>
> .****
>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D26784&title=%E2%80%9CFrom%20Citizenship%20to%20Voting%3A%20Improving%20Registration%20for%20New%20Americans%E2%80%9D&description=>
> ****
>
> Posted in voter registration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=37> |
> Comments Off ****
> “Wager on Elections? You Bet” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26781> ****
>
> Posted on December 19, 2011 2:23 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26781>by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> *Politico* reports<http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70624.html#.Tu-2OFL0lZE.twitter>
> .****
>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D26781&title=%E2%80%9CWager%20on%20Elections%3F%20You%20Bet%E2%80%9D&description=>
> ****
>
> Posted in campaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59> | Comments Off **
> **
> If You Wanted to Draft a Constitutional Amendment to Overturn Citizens
> United, What Would It Look Like? <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26778> ***
> *
>
> Posted on December 19, 2011 2:00 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26778>by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> 12 questions<http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2011125119/how-choose-so-many-constitutional-amendments>
> .****
>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D26778&title=If%20You%20Wanted%20to%20Draft%20a%20Constitutional%20Amendment%20to%20Overturn%20Citizens%20United%2C%20What%20Would%20It%20Look%20Like%3F&description=>
> ****
>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> |
> Comments Off ****
> “Judge refuses to dismiss charges against White”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26776>
> ****
>
> Posted on December 19, 2011 1:59 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26776>by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> AP<http://content.usatoday.net/dist/custom/gci/InsidePage.aspx?cId=indystar&sParam=38177659.story>:
> “A judge on Monday denied Indiana Secretary of State Charlie White’s bid to
> avoid a trial on voter fraud and other criminal charges that could lead to
> his removal from office.”****
>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D26776&title=%E2%80%9CJudge%20refuses%20to%20dismiss%20charges%20against%20White%E2%80%9D&description=>
> ****
>
> Posted in SOS White <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=13> | Comments Off **
> **
> “Walker says lawsuit will protect integrity of recall process”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26772>
> ****
>
> Posted on December 19, 2011 1:56 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26772>by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> The latest <http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/135868053.html> from
> Wisconsin.****
>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D26772&title=%E2%80%9CWalker%20says%20lawsuit%20will%20protect%20integrity%20of%20recall%20process%E2%80%9D&description=>
> ****
>
> Posted in direct democracy <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=62>, recall
> elections <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=11> | Comments Off ****
> Will President Obama Make A Recess Appointment of Cordray (and Others?)
> After All? <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26770> ****
>
> Posted on December 19, 2011 1:55 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26770>by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> It <http://t.co/LjPWmEER> may<http://www.politico.com/politico44/perm/1211/echoes_of_tr_17634fb9-21bd-49a0-a20e-0294c2165210.html>
> happen<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204058404577106872046993652.html>.
> Maybe some judges in there too?  So what’s the downside for President
> Obama?  *More* partisan divide in the Senate?****
>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D26770&title=Will%20President%20Obama%20Make%20A%20Recess%20Appointment%20of%20Cordray%20%28and%20Others%3F%29%20After%20All%3F&description=>
> ****
>
> Posted in legislation and legislatures<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=27>| Comments Off
> ****
> “Candidate Venture Capital” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26767> ****
>
> Posted on December 19, 2011 12:54 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26767>by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> Tom Donnelly has posted this draft<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1935376>on SSRN (
> *University of Cincinnati Law Review*).  Here is the abstract:****
>
> Candidate venture capital contributions are large donations given to
> candidates near the beginning of campaigns in order to provide them with
> sufficient resources to test their ideas in the campaign marketplace. These
> contributions can take the form of either large private donations or public
> grants. Although election law scholars and political scientists disagree a
> great deal over the aggregate effects of money in politics (and the utility
> of various reform proposals), they generally agree that early money is
> particularly valuable to political newcomers — especially when challenging
> incumbents. While both campaign finance reformers and anti-reformers often
> pay lip service to the value of early campaign cash, both sides usually
> offer prescriptions that deal with campaign contributions in an
> undifferentiated manner. This Article offers a different approach, focusing
> exclusively on how our campaign finance system might be altered to promote
> the value of early campaign cash in its own right. Rather than seeking
> undifferentiated contribution limits (like the typical reformer) or the
> complete deregulation of private contributions (like the typical
> anti-reformer), this Article suggests that policymakers might instead
> tailor campaign finance regulations to reflect the changing value of
> campaign cash over the course of the typical election cycle. Central to
> such an approach is a campaign finance system that increases the overall
> flow of candidate venture capital. In the end, this Article is an attempt
> to place the element of time at the center of the debate over campaign
> finance.****
>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D26767&title=%E2%80%9CCandidate%20Venture%20Capital%E2%80%9D&description=>
> ****
>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> |
> Comments Off ****
> “What are the people behind Americans Elect thinking?”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26765>
> ****
>
> Posted on December 19, 2011 12:52 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26765>by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> Sandy Levinson blogs<http://balkin.blogspot.com/2011/12/what-are-people-behind-america-elects.html>
> .****
>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D26765&title=%E2%80%9CWhat%20are%20the%20people%20behind%20Americans%20Elect%20thinking%3F%E2%80%9D&description=>
> ****
>
> Posted in third parties <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=47> | Comments
> Off ****
> “Gingrich’s sale of mailing list unlawful, watchdog group charges”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26762>
> ****
>
> Posted on December 19, 2011 12:20 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26762>by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> *WaPo* reports<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gingrichs-sale-of-mailing-list-unlawful-watchdog-group-charges/2011/12/19/gIQArh3s4O_story.html>
> .****
>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D26762&title=%E2%80%9CGingrich%E2%80%99s%20sale%20of%20mailing%20list%20unlawful%2C%20watchdog%20group%20charges%E2%80%9D&description=>
> ****
>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> |
> Comments Off ****
> What Can the EAC Do Without a Quorum of Commisioners?<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26759>
> ****
>
> Posted on December 19, 2011 12:17 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26759>by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> The EAC blog explains<http://www.eac.gov/blogs/work_continues_at_the_eac/>
> .****
>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D26759&title=What%20Can%20the%20EAC%20Do%20Without%20a%20Quorum%20of%20Commisioners%3F&description=>
> ****
>
> Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, Election
> Assistance Commission <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=34> | Comments Off
> ****
> “Super PACs: How We Got Here, Where We Need to Go”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26757>
> ****
>
> Posted on December 19, 2011 12:16 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26757>by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> A Trevor Potter speech<http://www.clcblog.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=444:super-pacs-how-we-got-here-where-we-need-to-go>
> .****
>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D26757&title=%E2%80%9CSuper%20PACs%3A%20How%20We%20Got%20Here%2C%20Where%20We%20Need%20to%20Go%E2%80%9D&description=>
> ****
>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> |
> Comments Off ****
> “A Partisan Lightning Rod is Undeterred”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26755>
> ****
>
> Posted on December 19, 2011 10:00 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26755>by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> *NYT *must-read interview<http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/18/us/politics/under-partisan-fire-eric-holder-soldiers-on.html?_r=1&ref=politics>with AG Eric Holder, just before his voting right speech at the LBJ library.
> ****
>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D26755&title=%E2%80%9CA%20Partisan%20Lightning%20Rod%20is%20Undeterred%E2%80%9D&description=>
> ****
>
> Posted in Department of Justice <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=26> |
> Comments Off ****
> “RNC Moves Voter Data Outside to Compete With Democrats”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26753>
> ****
>
> Posted on December 19, 2011 9:47 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26753>by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> ClickZ reports
> <http://www.clickz.com/clickz/news/2133246/rnc-moves-voter-outside-compete-democrats>(via
> Bob Biersack<https://twitter.com/#%21/rbiersack/status/148820461789253632>
> ).****
>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D26753&title=%E2%80%9CRNC%20Moves%20Voter%20Data%20Outside%20to%20Compete%20With%20Democrats%E2%80%9D&description=>
> ****
>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> |
> 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
> 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****
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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****
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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****
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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****
>
>
>
>
> --
> Stephen M. Hoersting****
>

-- 
Stephen M. Hoersting
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20111220/6cf1e1e2/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1520 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20111220/6cf1e1e2/attachment.png>