[EL] ELB News and Commenary 6/25/11

Sat Jun 25 10:42:31 PDT 2011

I was not "defending " what reid and kerry did-I was merely correcting the record. They did not solicit corporate, unionm or unlimited individual funds--what for years has been known as "soft money." they solicted amounts permitted to be contributed to Pacs under McCain Feingold--as the FEC regs and AOs allow for non-federal committees.
Trevor

Sent by Good Messaging (www.good.com)

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	JBoppjr at aol.com [mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com]
Sent:	Saturday, June 25, 2011 01:21 PM Eastern Standard Time
To:	rhasen at law.uci.edu
Cc:	law-election at uci.edu
Subject:	Re: [EL] ELB News and Commenary 6/25/11

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/) 

<- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ->
To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, 
we inform you that, unless specifically indicated otherwise, 
any tax advice contained in this communication (including any 
attachments) was not intended or written to be used, and 
cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related 
penalties under the Internal Revenue Code, or (ii)  promoting, 
marketing, or recommending to another party any tax-related 
matter addressed herein. 

This message is for the use of the intended recipient only.  It is
from a law firm and may contain information that is privileged and
confidential.  If you are not the intended recipient any disclosure,
copying, future distribution, or use of this communication is
prohibited.  If you have received this communication in error, please
advise us by return e-mail, or if you have received this communication
by fax advise us by telephone and delete/destroy the document.