[EL] More news 7/20/11
Justin Levitt
levittj at lls.edu
Wed Jul 20 13:35:34 PDT 2011
Corporate election expenditures linked to ownership structure
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=20687>
Posted on July 20, 2011 <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=20687> by Justin
Levitt <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
An intriguing topline from a new paper
<http://www.bepress.com/bap/vol13/iss1/art1/> by Susan Clark Muntean:
This paper proposes a theory of political action based upon
ownership structure and tests this theory utilizing data on
independent expenditures during the campaign finance regulatory
regime consisting of the period after the Bipartisan Campaign Reform
Act of 2002 and before the U.S. Supreme Court's Citizens United
decision in 2010. The results suggest a strong relationship between
the presence of an entrepreneur or founding family and firm
participation in electoral politics via contributions to independent
political organizations. Both privately held and publicly traded
firms with a principal owner present are more likely to contribute
to independent political organizations in the first place, and once
they do contribute, give a far greater amount relative to firms
without a principal owner. The implications for the post-Citizens
United era and possible motivations behind independent expenditures
and their impact on other stakeholders including investors,
employees, competitors, and the public are discussed. This paper
contributes to our understanding of which corporate interests are
most likely to spend money on electoral politics independent of the
political party or candidate and seeks to broaden discourse about
why these actors might participate in elections in the first place
as well as the impact of their participation.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D20687&title=Corporate%20election%20expenditures%20linked%20to%20ownership%20structure&description=>
Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> |
Comments Off
"Angering their own party, Rhode Island Democrats approve voter ID"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=20685>
Posted on July 20, 2011 <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=20685> by Justin
Levitt <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
Stateline reports.
<http://stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=588619>
One particularly unfortunate aspect of the report: like others, it
apparently gives credence to the argument that you can assess the impact
of an ID law on minorities in places like Indiana and Georgia by looking
at turnout results from an election or two. Rep. Todd Rokita
<http://www.redstate.com/aglanon/2011/07/19/americans-support-voter-i-d/> made
that same argument again earlier this week.
As I've said before
<http://www.brennancenter.org/blog/archives/still_jumping_to_conclusions/>,
trying to assess the impact of any given law by looking at aggregate
turnout in an election or two is, simply, incredibly bad statistics.
There are hundreds of reasons why turnout goes up or down in a
particular year: particular candidates, particular hot-button issues,
particularly meaningful races, particular local mobilization, particular
weather.
Trying to assess the impact of ID on minority citizens in Indiana and
Georgia in 2008 is /particularly/ foolish: both states were, for the
first time ever, contested battleground states in a presidential
election with a minority candidate at the top of the ticket. Knowing
that minority turnout jumped from 2004 to 2008 doesn't tell you anything
about the role of a single law in the mix. Maybe the turnout would have
been twice as high if not for the law.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D20685&title=%E2%80%9CAngering%20their%20own%20party%2C%20Rhode%20Island%20Democrats%20approve%20voter%20ID%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in voter id <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9> | Comments Off
"More questions about Vince Gray's mayoral campaign"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=20683>
Posted on July 20, 2011 <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=20683> by Justin
Levitt <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
The Washington Post on Gray's campaign finance irregularities
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/more-questions-for-vince-grays-mayoral-campaign/2011/07/19/gIQAORUfOI_story.html>.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D20683&title=%E2%80%9CMore%20questions%20about%20Vince%20Gray%E2%80%99s%20mayoral%20campaign%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> |
Comments Off
"Elections as a Distinct Sphere Under the First Amendment"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=20681>
Posted on July 20, 2011 <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=20681> by Justin
Levitt <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
Rick Pildes, with a new piece
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1875850> on
elections exceptionalism. From the abstract:
This essay asserts that the strongest legal arguments for justifying
regulations of election financing, such as electioneering paid for
out of a corporation's or union's general treasury funds, ultimately
rest on the view that elections should be considered a distinct
sphere of political activity for constitutional purposes. Elections
should be conceived as distinct from the more general arena of
democratic debate, both because elections serve a specific set of
purposes and because those purposes arguably can be undermined or
corrupted by actions such as the willingness of candidates or
officeholders trade their votes on issues for campaign contributions
or spending. Given this risk of corruption of the political judgment
of officeholders, regulations of the electoral sphere -- including
how elections are financed -- might be constitutionally permissible
that would not otherwise be permissible outside the electoral
sphere, including in the arena of democratic debate more generally.
The essay argues that this is the form of argument best structured
to be accepted within the American constitutional tradition and that
is necessary to justify measures such as ceilings on campaign
contributions, disclosure of campaign spending, and limits on the
role of corporate and union electioneering. If such regulation would
be desirable as a policy matter, its permissibility would depend on
the ability to develop First Amendment principles permitting such
regulation while still prohibiting regulations that some would see
as somewhat similar in non-electoral environments.
Even if the Supreme Court has implicitly rejected this argument in
Citizens United (without directly confronting the argument), the
various possible ways of responding constitutionally to the
decision, through federal or state legislation, administrative
regulation, or corporate governance rules, depend on conceptualizing
clearly the nature of the underlying problem and the justifications
for the specific policy response being adopted. Whatever the merits
of any particular response, this essay argues that the best
underlying justification for such responses will depend on
recognizing the distinct values, purposes, and justifications that
underwrite the role of elections in democratic societies.
As with all of Rick's work, I'm looking forward to reading this.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D20681&title=%E2%80%9CElections%20as%20a%20Distinct%20Sphere%20Under%20the%20First%20Amendment%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in theory <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=41> | Comments Off
Summary judgment in /CIF v. Tennant/: three intriguing rulings
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=20676>
Posted on July 20, 2011 <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=20676> by Justin
Levitt <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
This case is a challenge to West Virginia's campaign finance laws ---
mostly disclosure requirements --- that has been up to the Fourth
Circuit and back, with a few changes to state and federal law in the
interim. On Monday, the district court issued a 92-page opinion
<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/CIF-v-Tennant.pdf> on
summary judgment.
The upshot: the court upholds much of the state's law. But it strikes
down three regulations of particular note. More after the jump.
The court first strikes a portion of the state's definition of express
advocacy, cribbed directly from Justice Robert's opinion in /WRTL II/:
"Expressly advocating" means any communication that . . . is susceptible
of no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or
against a specific candidate." The court finds this language
unconstitutionally vague without the additional distinct triggers of
BCRA (e.g., mentioning a candidate to a certain audience within a
certain time period before an election).
Second, the state's inclusion of non-broadcast media in defining
"electioneering communications" for disclosure purposes.
And third --- probably most important --- the court strikes down a
disclosure requirement for significant contributors to an organization
making electioneering communications, whether or not those contributions
are earmarked for ads. The court essentially decides that only those who
earmark can be required to disclose --- following the FEC's highly
controversial <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=17974> federal regulation.
Interesting. And all likely candidates for appeal.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D20676&title=Summary%20judgment%20in%20%3Ci%3ECIF%20v.%20Tennant%3C%2Fi%3E%3A%20three%20intriguing%20rulings&description=>
Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> |
Comments Off
Quid for the quo <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=20671>
Posted on July 20, 2011 <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=20671> by Justin
Levitt <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
Evidence of campaign contributions for votes
<http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2011/07/lobbyist_says_she_offered_two.html>
on a gambling bill in Alabama.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D20671&title=Quid%20for%20the%20quo&description=>
Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,
lobbying <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=28>, vote buying
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=43> | Comments Off
More on the c4 denials of party-related nonprofits
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=20669>
Posted on July 20, 2011 <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=20669> by Justin
Levitt <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
The Times
<http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/20/business/irs-denies-3-political-advocacy-groups-tax-exempt-status.html?_r=1>
has more on this story <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=20560>, including
a connection to similar action in 2003.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D20669&title=More%20on%20the%20c4%20denials%20of%20party-related%20nonprofits&description=>
Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, tax law
and election law <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=22> | Comments Off
"Campaign cash flying from Northeast Florida"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=20667>
Posted on July 20, 2011 <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=20667> by Justin
Levitt <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
An interesting look
<http://jacksonville.com/news/florida/2011-07-19/story/campaign-cash-flying-northeast-florida>
at one impact of redistricting on campaign finance.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D20667&title=%E2%80%9CCampaign%20cash%20flying%20from%20Northeast%20Florida%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,
redistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6> | Comments Off
--
Justin Levitt
Associate Professor of Law
Loyola Law School | Los Angeles
919 Albany St.
Los Angeles, CA 90015
213-736-7417
justin.levitt at lls.edu
ssrn.com/author=698321
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20110720/704fa56f/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1520 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20110720/704fa56f/attachment.png>
View list directory