[EL] ELB News and Commentary 12/29/11
JBoppjr at aol.com
JBoppjr at aol.com
Thu Dec 29 12:02:03 PST 2011
The State actually argued that this was a "disclosure" law, not a
prohibition, so I am a little sensitive on this point.
Happy New Year to you Rick and to all on this most interesting list serve.
Jim Bopp
In a message dated 12/29/2011 2:44:05 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
rhasen at law.uci.edu writes:
Jim,
I agree with you 100%. That was sloppiness on my part. I've changed the
title of my post to end with "Campaign Finance Laws."
Happy new year!
Rick
On 12/29/2011 11:32 AM, _JBoppjr at aol.com_ (mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com) wrote:
Rick describes this law:
Washington Revised Code § 42.17.105(8), which prohibits a political
committee from accepting from any one person contributions exceeding $5,000
within 21 days of a general election
as a "disclosure law."
_Ninth Circuit Upholds Two, Strikes Down One, Wa. State Campaign Finance
Disclosure Law_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=27193)
Posted on _December 29, 2011 11:15 am_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=27193) by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
_Family PAC v. McKenna_
(http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2011/12/29/10-35832.pdf) :
We address the constitutionality of three provisions of Washington
election law as applied to the political committees that support and oppose ballot
measures. We hold that Washington’s disclosure requirements, Washington
Revised Code § 42.17.090 and Washington Administrative Code § 390-16-034,
which require these committees to disclose the name and address of
contributors giving more than $25, and additionally to disclose the employer and
occupation of contributors giving more than $100, survive exacting scrutiny
because they are substantially related to the important governmental interest
in informing the electorate. We hold that Washington Revised Code §
42.17.105(8), which prohibits a political committee from accepting from any one
person contributions exceeding $5,000 within 21 days of a general election, is
not closely drawn to achieve the state’s important interest in informing
the electorate. Section 42.17.105(8) is therefore unconstitutional as
applied to ballot measure committees. We affirm the judgment of the district
court.
Of course, it is nothing of the kind. It is a contribution prohibition.
Some seem to describe as a "disclosure law" any law they agree with
because they apparently think that, if the characterization sticks, it will be
upheld no matter what. Jim Bopp
In a message dated 12/29/2011 2:22:10 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
_rhasen at law.uci.edu_ (mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu) writes:
_Thank You and Happy New Year_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=27191)
Posted on _December 29, 2011 11:18 am_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=27191) by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
Barring breaking legal developments (and we’ve seen an inordinate share of
those in the last two weeks), posting will resume after New Year’s Day
(and will be light the first week of January as I_ speak_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26751) at AALS on Internet voting and at a panel on law blogging
and argue for the City of San Diego on cross-motions for summary judgment
in the _Thalheimer_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=22249) campaign finance
case).
The year ahead will be a busy one for election law, and especially for me
beginning in the summer with the publication of _The Voting Wars_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=22990) by Yale University Press. I hope to do a
mini-book tour in the fall talking about these issues before Election Day.
Also, save the date of September 14, 2012 for an exciting conference, Foxes,
Henhouses, and Commissions: Assessing the Nonpartisan Model in Election
Administration, Redistricting, and Campaign Finance, at UC Irvine Law.
As the new year approaches, I want to thank my readers for their support.
Many people wonder how I am able to keep up with and report upon election
law developments around the U.S. The answer is that I have many generous
readers, who supply me with tips, links, and perceptive analysis which aids
me greatly in the job I do here. I could not do it without them!
I also want to thank my regular and occasional guest bloggers (especially
Dan Tokaji and Justin Levitt, who regularly fill in for me when I am away)
for their hard work and insightful analysis.
I also wish to thank the IT staffs first at Loyola, and now UCI, for
keeping everything running smoothly. There is a lot of behind-the-scenes work
which readers do not see. Thank you!
A happy, healthy, peaceful, prosperous 2012 election law year for all!
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=27191&title=Thank%20You%20and%20Happy%20New%20Year&description=)
Posted in _Uncategorized_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1) | Comments
Off
_Ninth Circuit Upholds Two, Strikes Down One, Wa. State Campaign Finance
Disclosure Law_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=27193)
Posted on _December 29, 2011 11:15 am_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=27193) by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
_Family PAC v. McKenna_
(http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2011/12/29/10-35832.pdf) :
We address the constitutionality of three provisions of Washington
election law as applied to the political committees that support and oppose ballot
measures. We hold that Washington’s disclosure requirements, Washington
Revised Code § 42.17.090 and Washington Administrative Code § 390-16-034,
which require these committees to disclose the name and address of
contributors giving more than $25, and additionally to disclose the employer and
occupation of contributors giving more than $100, survive exacting scrutiny
because they are substantially related to the important governmental interest
in informing the electorate. We hold that Washington Revised Code §
42.17.105(8), which prohibits a political committee from accepting from any one
person contributions exceeding $5,000 within 21 days of a general election,
is not closely drawn to achieve the state’s important interest in informing
the electorate. Section 42.17.105(8) is therefore unconstitutional as
applied to ballot measure committees. We affirm the judgment of the district
court.
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=27193&title=Ninth%20Circuit%20Upholds%20Two,%20Strikes%20Down%20One,%20Wa.%20Stat
e%20Campaign%20Finance%20Disclosure%20Law&description=)
Posted in _campaign finance_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10) |
Comments Off
_“U.S. opposes Texas election maps”_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=27188)
Posted on _December 29, 2011 10:48 am_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=27188) by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
Lyle Denniston _reports_
(http://www.scotusblog.com/2011/12/u-s-opposes-texas-election-maps/) .
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=27188&title=“U.S.%20opposes%20Texas%20election%20maps”&description=)
Posted in _Department of Justice_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=26) ,
_redistricting_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6) , _Supreme Court_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29) , _Voting Rights Act_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15) | Comments Off
_“Virginia: If it’s wrong to exclude Gingrich and Perry, can they get on
ballot?”_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=27185)
Posted on _December 29, 2011 10:45 am_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=27185) by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
The Christian Science Monitor offers _this report_
(http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/President/2011/1228/Virginia-If-it-s-wrong-to-exclude-Gingric
h-and-Perry-can-they-get-on-ballot) , with the subhead: “Newt Gingrich is
not amused at being left off the Virginia primary ballot, Rick Perry is
suing, and some in the state are sympathetic. So what went wrong? And can it
be undone?”
You can read the judge’s scheduling order in the Rick Perry lawsuit _here_
(https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0BxeOfQQnU
r_gZWY0NTRkOGEtYTAzMi00MTdjLWI5N2YtNDNhZTQ2YzcxYWJi&hl=en_US) .
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=27185&title=“Virginia:%20If%20it’
s%20wrong%20to%20exclude%20Gingrich%20and%20Perry,%20can%20they%20get%20on%20ballot?”&description=)
Posted in _ballot access_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=46) | Comments
Off
_“The New Phone Book is Here! The New Phone Book is Here”_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=27182)
Posted on _December 29, 2011 10:37 am_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=27182) by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
Actually, it is _“The List”_
(http://www.electionline.org/index.php/electionline-weekly) from Electionline—must-read for election administration
geeks (with _apologies_ (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079367/quotes) to Steve
Martin).
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=27182&title=“
The%20New%20Phone%20Book%20is%20Here!%20The%20New%20Phone%20Book%20is%20Here”&description=)
Posted in _Uncategorized_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1) | Comments
Off
_“Fundraisers Take a Gamble on Lotteries”_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=27179)
Posted on _December 29, 2011 10:34 am_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=27179) by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
Politico _reports_ (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70913.html) .
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=27179&title=“Fundraisers%20Take%20a%20Gamble%20on%20Lotteries”&description=)
Posted in _campaigns_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59) | Comments Off
_“Federal judge: For blacks, ‘voting rights’ include identifying
Democrats on ballots”_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=27174)
Posted on _December 29, 2011 10:30 am_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=27174) by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
_This item_
(http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/26/federal-judge-for-blacks-voting-rights-include-identifying-democrats-on-ballots/) appears at the Daily
Caller.
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=27174&title=“Federal%20judge:%20For%20blacks,%20‘voting%20rights’
%20include%20identifying%20Democrats%20on%20ballots”&description=)
Posted in _Voting Rights Act_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15) |
Comments Off
_“Gingrich ‘Loophole’ Offers Lobbyist Access for Consultant Cash”_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=27172)
Posted on _December 29, 2011 10:29 am_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=27172) by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
Bloomberg _reports_
(http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-29/gingrich-loophole-offers-lobbyist-access-for-consultant-cash.html) .
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=27172&title=“Gingrich%20‘Loophole’
%20Offers%20Lobbyist%20Access%20for%20Consultant%20Cash”&description=)
Posted in _lobbying_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=28) | Comments Off
_“The Other Side Of The Abramoff Scandal: Neil Volz, Now A Janitor,
Self-Publishes Book”_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=27170)
Posted on _December 29, 2011 10:28 am_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=27170) by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
_TPM_
(http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/12/the_other_side_of_the_abramoff_scandal_neil_volz_now_a_janitor_self-publishes_book.php) : “For
a felon, former lobbyist _Jack Abramoff_
(http://topics.talkingpointsmemo.com/Jack-Abramoff) has it pretty good: a book deal, a WND column, regular
appearances on cable news and a spot judging TPM’s Golden Dukes. But it
turns out the path to prosperity is a lot of tougher for the lower-ranking
individuals caught up in the scandal defined by Abramoff’s name.”
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=27170&title=“
The%20Other%20Side%20Of%20The%20Abramoff%20Scandal:%20Neil%20Volz,%20Now%20A%20Janitor,%20Self-Publishes%20Book”&description=)
Posted in _chicanery_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12) , _lobbying_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=28) | Comments Off
_Indiana Supreme Court Denies Challenge to Political Robocall Ban_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=27166)
Posted on _December 29, 2011 8:54 am_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=27166) by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
You can find the opinion _here_
(http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/indiana-robocall.pdf) . The court, with one dissent, holds the law
likely does not violate the First Amendment. Nontheless the law is currently
preempted under a separate federal court decision, which is on appeal.
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=27166&title=Indiana%20Supreme%20Court%20Denies%20Challenge%20to%20Political%20Rob
ocall%20Ban&description=)
Posted in _campaigns_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59) | Comments Off
_“Iowa GOP explains moving vote tabulation away from HQ”_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=27163)
Posted on _December 28, 2011 8:20 pm_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=27163) by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
_Politico_
(http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2011/12/iowa-gop-explains-moving-vote-tabulation-away-from-108962.html) : “But after the Iowa
GOP HQ was flooded today with questions from Ron Paul backers and
conspiracy-minded types about why the Republicans were compiling the votes from the
state’s 99 counties in private, the state party’s executive director
confirmed that they were going off-site and said it was only to avoid a
sabotage.”
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=27163&title=“
Iowa%20GOP%20explains%20moving%20vote%20tabulation%20away%20from%20HQ”&description=)
Posted in _Uncategorized_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1) | Comments
Off
_Must-Read Linda Greenhouse Column on Supreme Court, Legitimacy, and
Public Opinion_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=27159)
Posted on _December 28, 2011 8:15 pm_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=27159) by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
Of course, _the column_
(http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/28/what-we-think-about-when-we-think-about-the-court/) touches on Bush v. Gore
and Citizens United.
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=27159&title=Must-Read%20Linda%20Greenhouse%20Column%20on%20Supreme%20Court,%20Leg
itimacy,%20and%20Public%20Opinion&description=)
Posted in _Supreme Court_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29) | Comments
Off
--
Rick Hasen
Chancellor's 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://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_
(http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election)
--
Rick Hasen
Chancellor's 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://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html)
_http://electionlawblog.org_ (http://electionlawblog.org/)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20111229/035e3745/attachment.html>
View list directory