[EL] McComish (and let's stop calling it that) Decided

Mon Jun 27 12:46:38 PDT 2011

Thanks for the correction, Sean. I got confused in my  exuberance.  Jim

In a message dated 6/27/2011 2:59:14 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
jgoldfeder at stroock.com writes:

Yes it was  she. 

Jerry H.  Goldfeder 
Stroock  & Stroock & Lavan LLP 
180 Maiden  Lane 
New York,  NY 10038 
212-806-5857    (office) 
917-680-3132    (cell) 
212-806-7857    (fax) 
jgoldfeder at stroock.com 
www.stroock.com/goldfeder

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=509222337049374142
2&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://electionlawblog.org/?p=19725&title=“
The%20Arizona%20Campaign%20Finance%20Law:%20The%20Surprising%20Good%20News%20in%20the%20Supreme%20Court’s%20New%20Decision”&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://electionlawblog.org/?p=19722&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://electionlawblog.org/?p=19719&title=IJ%20Wins,%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-arizon
a-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://electionlawblog.org/?p=19712&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://electionlawblog.org/?p=19706&title=Justice%20Kagan’
s%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://electionlawblog.org/?p=19702&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://electionlawblog.org/?p=19699&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://electionlawblog.org/?p=19696&title=The%20Dissent’s%20Ouch!&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_ 
(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://electionlawblog.org/?p=19693&title=Ouch!&description=Posted%20on%20June%2027,%202011%20by%20Rick%20Hasen

A%20fn.%20in%20CJ%20Roberts’%20opinion:%20“
Prior%20to%20oral%20argument%20in%20this%20case,) 

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://electionlawblog.org/?p=19690&title=Arizona%20Free%20Enterprise%20Club’
s%20Freedom%20PAC%20v.%20Bennett%20(McComish)%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_ (mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu) 
_http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html_ 
(http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html) 