[EL] McComish (and let's stop calling it that) Decided
Susan Lerner
SLerner at CommonCause.org
Mon Jun 27 11:58:15 PDT 2011
Sean’s correct. Sotomayor was on the NYC Campaign Finance Board, not Kagan.
**********************************************
Susan Lerner
Executive Director
Common Cause NY
74 Trinity Place, Suite 901
New York, NY 10006
T: 1-212-691-6421
M: 1-917-670-5670
www.commoncause.org/newyork
Sign up to receive news updates from Common Cause/NY <http://www.feedburner.com/fb/a/emailverifySubmit?feedId=2117663&loc=en_US>
“Like” us on <http://www.facebook.com/CommonCauseNewYork> Follow us on <http://twitter.com/#!/commoncauseny> & <http://www.youtube.com/user/CommonCauseNewYork>
Click here <http://www.citizenredistrictny.org/> for information about our redistricting efforts in NYS.
"We think it's time to give this nation back to its people. We share the cheerful conviction that as citizens we have every right to raise hell when we see injustice done, or the public interest betrayed, or the public process corrupted," John W. Gardner, founder of Common Cause.
From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Sean Parnell
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2011 2:52 PM
To: law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] McComish (and let's stop calling it that) Decided
Pretty sure it was Sotomayor that was on the NYC campaign finance board.
Sean Parnell
President
Center for Competitive Politics
http://www.campaignfreedom.org
http://www.twitter.com/seanparnellccp
124 S. West Street, #201
Alexandria, VA 22310
(703) 894-6800 phone
(703) 894-6813 direct
(703) 894-6811 fax
From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of JBoppjr at aol.com
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2011 2:49 PM
To: rhasen at law.uci.edu; law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] McComish (and let's stop calling it that) Decided
Rick sees the following silver linings in the Bennett decision.
(1) Buckley's standards for reviewing contribution limits was not overturned.
Well, they were not at issue.
(2) Kagan is on the anti-First Amendment side. Well, I never had any doubt about that. She was on New York City's campaign finance regulatory board and I was told she was enthusiastic about her job.
(3) Extra-matching funds provisions, like NYC's, were not struck down. Well, they were not challenged.
So the silver lining - things not challenged or at issue were not decided adversely to Rick's position, while the provisions at issue were decided against him May all his "victories" be just like this. Jim Bopp
In a message dated 6/27/2011 1:18:23 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, rhasen at law.uci.edu writes:
“The Arizona Campaign Finance Law: The Surprising Good News in the Supreme Court’s New Decision” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=19725>
Posted on June 27, 2011 <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=19725> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
I have written this commentary <http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/90834/arizona-campaign-finance-supreme-court> for The New Republic. It begins:
Campaign finance laws have now gone 0 for 5 in the Roberts Court. Monday’s Supreme Court decision <http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/10-238.pdf> striking down the matching funds portion of Arizona’s voluntary public financing law—which provided extra public financing for candidates facing free-spending opponents or major outside spending—was no surprise. Indeed, I predicted <http://electionlawblog.org/archives/011095.html> laws like Arizona’s were doomed back in 2008, on the day the Court struck down <http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5092223370493741422&q=davis+v.+federal+election+commission&hl=en&as_sdt=2,5&as_vis=1> a portion of the McCain-Feingold law which raised contribution limits for candidates facing millionaire opponents. The Roberts Court saw both laws as impermissibly trying to level the electoral playing field. Since 2005, the Court has also struck down <http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13551506278581494953&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr> Vermont’s campaign contribution limits as too low, narrowly interpreted <http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12228748998297097461&q=wisconsin+right+to+life+v+fec&hl=en&as_sdt=2,5&as_vis=1> the McCain-Feingold rules governing corporate campaign spending, and then dealt a death blow to those limits in its most controversial decision to date, Citizens United <http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6233137937069871624&q=citizens+united+v.+fec&hl=en&as_sdt=2,5&as_vis=1> .
Yet today’s decision brings three pieces of unexpected good news to those of us who believe that reasonable campaign finance regulation is not only constitutional, but essential to prevent corruption and ensure fairness in our democracy.
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D19725&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20Arizona%20Campaign%20Finance%20Law%3A%20The%20Surprising%20Good%20News%20in%20the%20Supreme%20Court%E2%80%99s%20New%20Decision%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> | Comments Off
More Statements on McComish <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=19722>
Posted on June 27, 2011 <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=19722> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Campaign Finance Institute <http://www.cfinst.org/Press/PReleases/11-06-27/CFI_Statement_on_McComish_Decision.aspx> ; Demos <http://www.demos.org/press.cfm?currentarticleID=D1F2E593-3FF4-6C82-551601FCFF7BAE2A> .
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D19722&title=More%20Statements%20on%20McComish&description=>
Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> | Comments Off
On 6/27/2011 9:56 AM, Rick Hasen wrote:
IJ Wins, with Links Galore on Arizona Case <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=19719>
Posted on June 27, 2011 <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=19719> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
See here <http://www.makenolaw.org/blog/8-government/205-free-speech-wins-ij-a-goldwater-score-major-supreme-court-victory> .
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D19719&title=IJ%20Wins%2C%20with%20Links%20Galore%20on%20Arizona%20Case&description=>
Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> | Comments Off |
On 6/27/2011 9:39 AM, Rick Hasen wrote:
News and Reactions on AZ Case <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=19712>
Posted on June 27, 2011 <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=19712> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
NY Times; <http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/28/us/politics/28campaign.html> AP <http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SUPREME_COURT_CAMPAIGN_FINANCE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT> ; SF Examiner <http://www.sfexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/06/supreme-court-overturns-arizona-campaign-finance-law> ; CCP <http://www.campaignfreedom.org/newsroom/detail/supreme-court-strikes-down-matching-funds-provision> ; Brennan Center <http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/supreme_court_strikes_down_trigger_funds_but_public_financing_laws_remain_i> ; Justice at Stake <http://www.gavelgrab.org/?p=22009> ; Democracy21 <http://bit.ly/meDJWQ> ; Heather Gerken <http://balkin.blogspot.com/2011/06/campaign-finance-and-doctrinal-death.html>
More to come.
My New Republic piece is being edited and will be up shortly.
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D19712&title=News%20and%20Reactions%20on%20AZ%20Case&description=>
Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> | Comments Off |
On 6/27/2011 8:15 AM, Rick Hasen wrote:
Justice Kagan’s Response on the Website Point <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=19706>
Posted on June 27, 2011 <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=19706> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
“Finally, the Court remarks in a footnote that the Clean Elections Commission’s website once stated that the ‘‘Act was passed by the people of Arizona . . . to level the playing field.’ Ante, at 24, n. 10. I can understand why the majority does not place much emphasis on this point.Some members of the majority have ridiculed the practice of relying on subsequent statements by legislators to demonstrate an earlier Congress’s intent in enacting a statute. See, e.g., Sullivan v. Finkelstein, 496 U. S. 617, 631–632 (1990) (SCALIA, J., concurring in part); United States v. Hayes, 555 U. S. 415, 434–435 (2009) (ROBERTS,
C. J., dissenting). Yet here the majority makes a much stranger claim: that a statement appearing on a government website in 2011 (written by who-knows-whom?) reveals what hundreds of thousands of Arizona’s voters sought to do in 1998 when they enacted the Clean Elections Act by referendum. Just to state that proposition is to know it is wrong.”
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D19706&title=Justice%20Kagan%E2%80%99s%20Response%20on%20the%20Website%20Point&description=>
Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> | Comments Off
More Gold from J. Kagan <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=19702>
Posted on June 27, 2011 <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=19702> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
“Pretend you are financing your campaign through private donations. Would you prefer that your opponent receive a guaranteed, upfront payment of $150,000, or that he receive only $50,000, with the possibility—a possibility that you mostly get to control—of collecting another $100,000 somewhere down the road? Me too.”
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D19702&title=More%20Gold%20from%20J.%20Kagan&description=>
Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> | Comments Of
On 6/27/2011 8:05 AM, Rick Hasen wrote:
And this from J. Kagan <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=19699>
Posted on June 27, 2011 <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=19699> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
“If an ordinary citizen, without the hindrance of a law degree, thought this result an upending of First Amendment values, he would be correct.”
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D19699&title=And%20this%20from%20J.%20Kagan&description=>
Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> | Comments Off
The Dissent’s Ouch! <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=19696>
Posted on June 27, 2011 <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=19696> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Justice Kagan: “So they are making a novel argument: that Arizona violated their First Amendment rights by disbursing funds to other speakers even though they could have received (but chose to spurn) the same financial assistance. Some people might call that chutzpah.”
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D19696&title=The%20Dissent%E2%80%99s%20Ouch%21&description=>
Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> | Comments Of
On 6/27/2011 7:52 AM, Rick Hasen wrote:
Ouch! <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=19693>
Posted on June 27, 2011 <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=19693> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
A fn. in CJ Roberts’ opinion: “Prior to oral argument in this case, the Citizens Clean Elections Commission’s Web site stated that “ ‘The Citizens Clean Elections Act was passed by the people of Arizona in 1998 to level the playing field when it comes to running for office.’ ” AFEC Brief 10, n. 3 (quoting http://www.azcleanelections.gov/about-us/get-involved.aspx); Tr. of OralArg. 48. The Web site now says that “The Citizens Clean Elections Actwas passed by the people of Arizona in 1998 to restore citizen participa-tion and confidence in our political system.”
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D19693&title=Ouch%21&description=Posted%20on%20June%2027%2C%202011%20by%20Rick%20Hasen%0D%0A%0D%0AA%20fn.%20in%20CJ%20Roberts%E2%80%99%20opinion%3A%20%E2%80%9CPrior%20to%20oral%20argument%20in%20this%20case%2C%>
Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> | Comments Of
On 6/27/2011 7:37 AM, Rick Hasen wrote:
Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom PAC v. Bennett (McComish) Decided <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=19690>
Posted on June 27, 2011 <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=19690> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
The opinion is here <http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/10-238.pdf> . It is 5-4, as expected, striking down the matching funds provision.
More to come after I’ve read and analyzed the 68 pages.
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D19690&title=Arizona%20Free%20Enterprise%20Club%E2%80%99s%20Freedom%20PAC%20v.%20Bennett%20%28McComish%29%20Decided&description=>
Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> | 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
http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html
William H. Hannon Distinguished Professor of Law
Loyola Law School
http://electionlawblog.org <http://electionlawblog.org/>
--
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
http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html
William H. Hannon Distinguished Professor of Law
Loyola Law School
http://electionlawblog.org <http://electionlawblog.org/>
--
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
http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html
William H. Hannon Distinguished Professor of Law
Loyola Law School
http://electionlawblog.org <http://electionlawblog.org/>
--
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
http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html
William H. Hannon Distinguished Professor of Law
Loyola Law School
http://electionlawblog.org <http://electionlawblog.org/>
--
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
http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html
William H. Hannon Distinguished Professor of Law
Loyola Law School
http://electionlawblog.org <http://electionlawblog.org/>
--
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
http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html
William H. Hannon Distinguished Professor of Law
Loyola Law School
http://electionlawblog.org <http://electionlawblog.org/>
--
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
http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html
William H. Hannon Distinguished Professor of Law
Loyola Law School
http://electionlawblog.org <http://electionlawblog.org/>
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20110627/2bb89e56/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 872 bytes
Desc: image002.jpg
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20110627/2bb89e56/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 928 bytes
Desc: image003.jpg
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20110627/2bb89e56/attachment-0001.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1210 bytes
Desc: image004.jpg
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20110627/2bb89e56/attachment-0002.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image005.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1520 bytes
Desc: image005.png
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20110627/2bb89e56/attachment.png>
View list directory