[EL] Electionlawblog news and commentary 5/27/11
JBoppjr at aol.com
JBoppjr at aol.com
Fri May 27 05:55:48 PDT 2011
I think the key point is not a prediction of future events but the
analysis. CU seriously undermines the analysis in Beaumont such that a court could
appropriately say that it is no longer good law and that CU's holding that
government cannot discriminate between speakers generally and ban
corporation speech specifically governs. Contributions have a speech element so CU
applies. Of course it is hard to get lower courts to do this, but this is
the state of the law. Jim Bopp
In a message dated 5/27/2011 12:59:59 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
rhasen at law.uci.edu writes:
_Federal District Court, in Criminal Case, Holds That Ban on Direct
Corporate Contributions to Candidates is Unconstitutional under Citizens United_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=18342)
Posted on _May 26, 2011_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=18342) by _Rick
Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
Big news broke while the blog was migrating today: A federal district court
in Virginia struck down the federal ban on corporate contributions to
candidates. You can read the judge’s 52-page opinion in U.S. v. Danielczyk
_here_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?attachment_id=18343) . The relevant
discussion appears on pages 42-46.
I would expect this decision not to stand, or at least to be reconsidered
by the judge. The United States Supreme Court in FEC v. Beaumont upheld a
ban on corporate contributions in the case of _FEC v. Beaumont_
(http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-403.ZS.html) , and the lower courts that have
considered this question have all held that Citizens United did not
overrule Beaumont on this question. The most recent case so holding is the Eighth
Circuit’s opinion in _MCCL v. Swanson_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=18211)
, which I noted on the blog on May 16. (The district court in Danielczyk
cites to the district court opinion in Swanson and seems unaware of the more
recent opinion on appeal.) [Disclosure: I have a case pending in the 9th
Circuit City of San Diego case, currently awaiting decision, raising a
similar issue. The trial court agreed with the City that the city's ban on
entity contributions to candidates was likely constitutional.]
It is curious that the district court did not discuss Beaumont. In
Swanson, all three appellate judges agreed that Beaumont controlled; the
concurring judge noted that he was bound by Beaumont even though he thought the
Supreme Court might overrule it if it reconsidered the question. Jim Bopp, upon
losing the appeal in Swanson, _told_
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/citizens-united-decision-reverberates-in-courts-across-country/2011/05/20/A
FbJEK9G_story.html) the Washington Post: “’We don’t expect lower courts
to overturn Supreme Court decisions,’ Bopp said, ‘but you do have to raise
these issues’ in hopes of getting the subject before the high court again.”
But it may not be the district court judge’s fault in Danielcyzk for not
discussing Beaumont. It does not appear the federal government even raised
it in its _brief_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?attachment_id=18346) .
The Atlanta Journal Constitution has a _story_
(http://www.ajc.com/news/georgia-politics-elections/federal-judge-strikes-down-958703.html) on the
case, but I’ve seen nothing else yet in other national media. I expect I will
very soon,
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=18342&title=Federal%20District%20Court,%20in%20Criminal%20Case,%20Holds%20That%20
Ban%20on%20Direct%20Corporate%20Contributions%20to%20Candidates%20is%20Uncon
stitutional%20under%20Citizens%20United&description=)
Posted in _Uncategorized_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1) | _Leave a
comment_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=18342#respond) | _Edit_
(http://electionlawblog.org/wp-admin/post.php?post=18342&action=edit)
_Thursday Roundup_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=18338)
Posted on _May 26, 2011_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=18338) by _Rick
Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
While the blog was down, some items of interest came my way.
The Washington Post offers _The Influence Industry: ‘Super PACs’ could
test campaign finance law_
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-influence-industry-legality-of-super-pacs-a-test-for-campaign-finance-law/2011/05/2
5/AGFfxUBH_story.html) .
The NY Times editorializes on _The Republicans’ ChutzPAC_
(http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/26/opinion/26thu4.html?ref=opinion) .
As expected, Minnesota’s governor _vetoed_
(http://www.startribune.com/politics/statelocal/122699199.html) the state’s voter identification bill.
Dan Froomkin _writes_
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/25/irs-karl-rove-crossroads-tax-law-donor-disclosure_n_866428.html) about the IRS and
Karl Rove.
And the new _Electionline Weekly_
(http://electionline.pmailus.com/pmailweb/ct?d=Q9THBgJqAAEAAALhAAUZqw) is out.
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=18338&title=Thursday%20Roundup&description=)
Posted in _Uncategorized_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1) | _Leave a
comment_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=18338#respond) | _Edit_
(http://electionlawblog.org/wp-admin/post.php?post=18338&action=edit)
_Feedburner Not Working Right Now_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=18332)
Posted on _May 26, 2011_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=18332) by _Rick
Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
So if you get your posts via Feedburner this may not be active. The IT
folks are working on it.
In the meantime, you should find the RSS _here_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?feed=rss2) .
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=18332&title=Feedburner%20Not%20Working%20Right%20Now&description=)
Posted in _Uncategorized_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1) | _Leave a
comment_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=18332#respond) | _Edit_
(http://electionlawblog.org/wp-admin/post.php?post=18332&action=edit)
--
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
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/20110527/57211d62/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1520 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20110527/57211d62/attachment.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1520 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20110527/57211d62/attachment-0001.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1520 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20110527/57211d62/attachment-0002.bin>
View list directory