[EL] Electionlawblog news and commentary 5/27/11

Fri May 27 16:26:39 PDT 2011

I have not had a chance to read the opinion yet, but I heard on NPR that it
was a criminal case involving a corporation reimbursing its employees for
their contributions. Why isn't it a crime for a corporation to reimburse its
employees even if the corporation can legally make a contribution.

Remember when Geoffrey Feiger of Detroit was charged with reimbursing his
employees contributions to John Edwards. The government was not claiming
that Feiger could not legally make contributions, but that he could not
legally reimburse others for making contributions.

Did I hear it wrong on NPR?

Edward Still                         NEW CONTACT INFO
attorney, mediator, arbitrator
130 Wildwood Parkway, Suite 108 PMB 304
Birmingham AL 35209
205-320-2882 (voice & fax)
[If that number does not work, call 205-335-9652 or fax 205-449-9752]
  www.votelaw.com/blog
  www.edwardstill.com
  www.linkedin.com/in/edwardstill

On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 11:46 AM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:

>  Even if a court were going to go there (I don't think it should, because
> I think there are strong arguments even under CU for a direct contribution
> ban), I think the Beaumont case deserved at least to be cited and the
> argument made which you make below.  I cannot understand why the government
> did not present it as the controlling authority that it is.  I expect this
> will be rectified in a motion for reconsideration.
>
> Rick
>
>
> On 5/27/2011 5:55 AM, JBoppjr at aol.com wrote:
>
>      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/AFbJEK9G_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,
>  [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=18342&title=Federal
> District Court, in Criminal Case, Holds That Ban on Direct Corporate
> Contributions to Candidates is Unconstitutional under Citizens
> United&description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D18342&title=Federal%20District%20Court%2C%20in%20Criminal%20Case%2C%20Holds%20That%20Ban%20on%20Direct%20Corporate%20Contributions%20to%20Candidates%20is%20Unconstitutional%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/2011/05/25/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.
>  [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=18338&title=Thursday
> Roundup&description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D18338&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>
> .
>  [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=18332&title=Feedburner
> Not Working Right Now&description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D18332&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
> 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://electionlawblog.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> 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
> http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html
>
> William H. Hannon Distinguished Professor of Law
> Loyola Law School
> 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/20110527/389c9b2b/attachment.html>