[EL] ELB News and Commenary 6/25/11
JBoppjr at aol.com
JBoppjr at aol.com
Sat Jun 25 10:19:46 PDT 2011
Rick asks:
"Tell me if I have this right: Under what you are proposing, party leaders
could raise unlimited sums (from individuals, corporations, labor unions,
etc.) to be spent on campaign expenditures (including candidate advertising)
to benefit those in the party. This Super-PAC would spend independently of
the political party to support the party's preferred candidates. It would
not donate directly to candidates."
Yes this is right. Since Colorado I approved political parties doing
independent expenditures, the political parties has been doing exactly this,
soliciting and spending millions of dollars for IEs. Furthermore, candidates
regularly solicited money for the political parties to be spent on those
IEs. McCain had a joint fundraising agreement with the RNC. He attended
fundraisers where he solicited funds for both himself and the RNC and the RNC
used the money for IEs supporting McCain. The only difference now is before
the funds raised for IEs were limited to the overall federal limit on
contributions to national parties. Now it is not.
When you say that you think this raises the same corruption concerns as
when soft money was raised, yes you are missing something. The Court has
held numerous times for over 35 years that independent expenditures do not
create any corruption concerns, while in McConnell they found that spending
soft money often did. So no corruption concerns here.
Even if you were right, doing anything about it would at least require a
new law by Congress, which, in any event, would not survive a court challenge
-- as I just explained.
Finally, there are over 70 different entities regulated by the FECA, each
with its own unique set of regulations. Some have not contribution limits
-- exploratory committees, draft committees. Further, candidates are
allowed to solicit unlimited sums of money to certain entities, ie, c4s that do
not do federal election activities. So the only sensible meaning of soft
money, and its original meaning, was "unregulated by federal law." Super
PACs are regulated by federal law. Jim
In a message dated 6/25/2011 10:57:53 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
rhasen at law.uci.edu writes:
Jim,
Tell me if I have this right: Under what you are proposing, party leaders
could raise unlimited sums (from individuals, corporations, labor unions,
etc.) to be spent on campaign expenditures (including candidate
advertising) to benefit those in the party. This Super-PAC would spend independently
of the political party to support the party's preferred candidates. It
would not donate directly to candidates.
Do I have that right? If so, I would say that this super-PAC would be
equivalent in function (and the dangers of corruption and the appearance of
corruption) as when party leaders raised unregulated sums (from individuals,
corporations, labor unions, etc.) to be spend on campaign expenditures
(including campaign advertising) to benefit those in the party. The only
difference is that the super-PAC is a formally separate organization from the
political party it ardently supports.
What am I missing? That you technically would not call the unlimited sums
being raised by the Super-PAC "soft money"? Or is there more to it?
Thanks.
Rick
On 6/25/11 8:04 AM, _JBoppjr at aol.com_ (mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com) wrote:
Super PACs are federally registered and regulated PACs that have no
contribution limits. Soft money is federally unregulated money. Thus, Super PACs
raise hard money that candidates can raise, not "soft money" that they
usually cannot, as Rick erroneously describes it.
The other interesting ramification of the FEC adopting the General
Counsel's predictably very restrictive draft is that Senators Reid and Kerry
have already solicited funds for a democrat Super PAC.
_Click here: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid Solicits Cash for New
Democratic Super PAC - OpenSecrets Blog | OpenSecrets_
(http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2011/06/senate-majority-leader-harry-reid-solicits.html) This
solicitation was certainly intentional, so criminal charges could be brought.
(Anyone wanta bet on the Obama DOJ doing that!) But in any event it is a
violation under the draft AO.
This would be a ridiculous outcome but one that would result if the
FEC does not get this right and let candidates do this. Jim Bopp
_“Draft Limiting ‘Super PAC’ Fund-Raising May Not Be FEC’s Last Word on
Question”_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=19632)
Posted on _June 24, 2011_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=19632) by _Rick
Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
BNA_ reports_
(http://news.bna.com/mpdm/MPDMWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=21191867&vname=mpebulallissues&fn=21191867&jd=a0c8e1d4d4&split=0) on the draft
advisory opinion on next week’s agenda: “A draft advisory opinion ruling
released by the Federal Election Commission would reject a proposal to
allow national officials to help so-called Super PACs raise unlimited
contributions….However, FEC officials said June 24 that they expect a competing
draft to be released before the FEC meets to consider the pending advisory
opinion on Super PAC fund-raising. The yet-unreleased draft may conclude that
there should be no restrictions on federal and party officials’ fund-raising
for these PACs.”
Let’s be clear: that competing proposal would get party leaders back into
raising soft money. If the FEC deadlocks again, and this leads to a green
light to such a turn of events, it would be a very bad development in my
opinion—reversing the other pillar of McCain-Feingold. It is not clear to me
whether there could be preemptive court action if, as I expect could well
happen, the FEC deadlocks on this issue on party lines.
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=19632&title=“Draft%20Limiting%20‘Super%20PAC’
%20Fund-Raising%20May%20Not%20Be%20FEC’s%20Last%20Word%20on%20Question”&description=)
Posted in _campaign finance_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10) |
Comments Off
In a message dated 6/24/2011 10:48:09 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
_rhasen at law.uci.edu_ (mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu) writes:
_“Whether White can serve as secretary of state to be decided Tuesday”_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=19643)
Posted on _June 24, 2011_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=19643) by _Rick
Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
See _here_
(http://www.nwitimes.com/news/state-and-regional/indiana/article_e0209164-ffc4-5b4c-b606-60282735cd51.html) .
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=19643&title=“
Whether%20White%20can%20serve%20as%20secretary%20of%20state%20to%20be%20decided%20Tuesday”&description=)
Posted in _SOS White_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=13) | Comments Off
_To the Georgia Secretary of State: Please Show Me Evidence that a Voter
ID Law Would Stop the Kind of Fraud You Find and Prosecute_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=19641)
Posted on _June 24, 2011_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=19641) by _Rick
Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
SOS Kemp, in WaPo_ letter to the editor_
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-voter-id-laws-keep-elections-honest/2011/06/22/AGS6UkjH_story.html)
: “Mr. Dionne argued that photo ID and related election-security laws are
not needed because voter fraud ‘is not a major problem.’ As chairman of
the Georgia State Election Board, I can attest that every year we
investigate and penalize hundreds of people guilty of election and voter fraud, and
we work with county district attorneys to prosecute them on criminal charges.
”
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=19641&title=To%20the%20Georgia%20Secretary%20of%20State:%20Please%20Show%20Me%20E
vidence%20that%20a%20Voter%20ID%20Law%20Would%20Stop%20the%20Kind%20of%20Fra
ud%20You%20Find%20and%20Prosecute&description=)
Posted in _election administration_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18) ,
_fraudulent fraud squad_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=8) , _voter id_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9) | Comments Off
_“Illinois’s controversial redistricting map becomes law; GOP will sue”_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=19638)
Posted on _June 24, 2011_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=19638) by _Rick
Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
The Hill‘s Ballot Box blog_ reports._
(http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/redistricting/168397-illinois-proposed-redistricting-map-becomes-official)
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=19638&title=“Illinois’
s%20controversial%20redistricting%20map%20becomes%20law;%20GOP%20will%20sue”&description=)
Posted in _redistricting_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6) | Comments
Off
_Remember the Obama Micro-Donors?_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=19635)
Posted on _June 24, 2011_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=19635) by _Rick
Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
_LA Times_
(http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-0625-obama-donors-20110625,0,1065791.story) : “A new program called Presidential
Partners asks supporters to commit $75,800 to the Obama Victory Fund, a joint
project of the campaign and the Democratic National Committee.”
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=19635&title=Remember%20the%20Obama%20Micro-Donors?&description=)
Posted in _campaign finance_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10) |
Comments Off
_“Draft Limiting ‘Super PAC’ Fund-Raising May Not Be FEC’s Last Word on
Question”_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=19632)
Posted on _June 24, 2011_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=19632) by _Rick
Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
BNA_ reports_
(http://news.bna.com/mpdm/MPDMWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=21191867&vname=mpebulallissues&fn=21191867&jd=a0c8e1d4d4&split=0) on the draft
advisory opinion on next week’s agenda: “A draft advisory opinion ruling
released by the Federal Election Commission would reject a proposal to
allow national officials to help so-called Super PACs raise unlimited
contributions….However, FEC officials said June 24 that they expect a competing
draft to be released before the FEC meets to consider the pending advisory
opinion on Super PAC fund-raising. The yet-unreleased draft may conclude that
there should be no restrictions on federal and party officials’ fund-raising
for these PACs.”
Let’s be clear: that competing proposal would get party leaders back into
raising soft money. If the FEC deadlocks again, and this leads to a green
light to such a turn of events, it would be a very bad development in my
opinion—reversing the other pillar of McCain-Feingold. It is not clear to me
whether there could be preemptive court action if, as I expect could well
happen, the FEC deadlocks on this issue on party lines.
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=19632&title=“Draft%20Limiting%20‘Super%20PAC’
%20Fund-Raising%20May%20Not%20Be%20FEC’s%20Last%20Word%20on%20Question”&description=)
Posted in _campaign finance_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10) |
Comments Off
_A Courageous Statement on Voter ID Bill from Republican Ohio Secretary of
State_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=19628)
Posted on _June 24, 2011_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=19628) by _Rick
Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Friday, June 24, 2011
SECRETARY OF STATE HUSTED STATEMENT ON PHOTO ID LEGISLATION
COLUMBUS – The following may be attributed in whole or in part to
Secretary of State Jon Husted regarding the photo identification legislation
pending in the General Assembly.
“I want to be perfectly clear, when I began working with the General
Assembly to improve Ohio’s elections system it was never my intent to reject
valid votes. I would rather have no bill than one with a rigid photo
identification provision that does little to protect against fraud and excludes
legally registered voters’ ballots from counting.
“It is in the hands of the General Assembly.”
-30-
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=19628&title=A%20Courageous%20Statement%20on%20Voter%20ID%20Bill%20from%20Republic
an%20Ohio%20Secretary%20of%20State&description=)
Posted in _Uncategorized_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1) | Comments
Off
_Adler Predicts a Likely Cert. Grant in Renzi Case_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=19623)
Posted on _June 24, 2011_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=19623) by _Rick
Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
_Here_
(http://volokh.com/2011/06/24/circuit-split-over-speech-and-debate-clause/) . I’m inclined to agree.
UPDATE: Mike Stern _too_
(http://www.pointoforder.com/2011/06/24/a-cert-worthy-speech-or-debate-case/) .
(http://www.
addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=19623&title=Adler%20Predicts%20a%20Likely%20Cert.%20Grant%20in%20Renzi%20Case&des
cription=)
Posted in _Speech or Debate Clause_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=36)
| Comments Off
_“Soros and liberal groups seeking top election posts in battleground
states”_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=19620)
Posted on _June 24, 2011_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=19620) by _Rick
Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
The Washington Times has this very interesting _report_
(http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jun/23/section-527-works-to-seat-liberals-as-election-
ove/) .
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=19620&title=“
Soros%20and%20liberal%20groups%20seeking%20top%20election%20posts%20in%20battleground%20states”&description=)
Posted in _campaign finance_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10) ,
_election administration_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18) | Comments Off
_Will ColbertNation Invade the FEC?_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=19617)
Posted on _June 24, 2011_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=19617) by _Rick
Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
_Could be._
(http://www.rollcall.com/news/fec_seeks_to_clarify_rules_for_super_pac-206774-1.html?pos=htmbtxt) You can read two draft opinions to be
considered by the FEC at its June 30 meeting _at this link_
(http://fec.gov/agenda/2011/mtgdoc_1138a_and_b.pdf) .
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=19617&title=Will%20ColbertNation%20Invade%20the%20FEC?&description=)
Posted in _campaign finance_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10) ,
_chicanery_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12) | Comments Off
--
Rick Hasen
Visiting Professor
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)
William H. Hannon Distinguished Professor of Law
Loyola Law School
_http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.html_
(http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/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
Visiting Professor
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)
William H. Hannon Distinguished Professor of Law
Loyola Law School
_http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.html_
(http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/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/20110625/72658415/attachment.html>
View list directory