[EL] Congressional Request for FEC Documents

Fri Nov 4 16:16:03 PDT 2011

I assume that what is at issue, at least in part, is the confidentiality of  FEC thresholds and criteria for evaluating when something warrants further inquiry. For example, the Commission is required by FECA (438(B)) to establish "thresholds" to use to internally review committee reports to determine when an audit is warranted. The FEC has long been prohibited from doing random audits. Likewise, criteria may be used for deciding which types of violations will be given priority when deciding whether to open an enforcement matter.  The rationale for keeping these criteria confidential is that if committees know what the FEC is  looking for as an indication an audit may be warranted or at what point the receipt of excessive contributions justifies an enforcement action, it would make it easier for the few who want to game the system to hide illegal activity. IN addition, using internal criteria and thresholds is usually intended to reduce the range of subjective judgments.  (Of course, with audits, they also eliminate the risk that a committee will be randomly audited and problems not reflected on reports will be discovered). These are not "secret law." They don't change what is or is not a violation.

To the extent the FEC sees itself as an enforcement agency, I don't think there is anything unusual about it not making public it's internal thresholds. In fact, the FEC has long opposed efforts to make these thresholds public.   I believe there has been at least one unsuccessful attempt by a private party to get a court to order the FEC to make public internal thresholds, with the court finding they fit under the FOIA exemption for internal law enforcement procedures.  Of course, congress clearly has oversight authority with the FEC.  However, providing the details of confidential thresholds to just members of congress would seem to give them an advantage over a non-incumbent challenger. But that doesn't mean that the FEC shouldn't give congress (and the public) some general idea of the type of criteria it looks at.

As for civil penalties,  it is already required to publish it's civil penalty schedule for late and non-filers and the statute sets the maximum penalties for other cases.  Nevertheless, I can see the merit in  the FEC providing a civil penalty schedule for other types of violations which details what factors will be considered mitigating and by how much those factors will lower the penalty when it negotiates a final settlement. Of course, to work, they would actually have to stick to the CP schedule and negotiations would be limited to showing why the mitigating factors do or do not apply. But it's a thought.

Larry
__________________________________
Lawrence M. Noble
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
1440 New York Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005-2111
T: 202.371.7365
F: 202.661.0565
lawrence.noble at skadden.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Trevor Potter [mailto:tpotter at capdale.com]
Sent: Friday, November 04, 2011 1:32 PM
To: Bill Maurer; JBoppjr at aol.com; rhasen at law.uci.edu; law-election at UCI.EDU
Subject: Re: [EL] ELB News and Commentary 11/4/11

I would think  that a  Congressional request for documents, in their constitutional oversight role, is not governed by the FOIA exemptions. I assume other enforcement agencies have faced similar questions. I am advised by tax lawyers that the IRS might brief congressional committees in general on their audit thresholds and internal fine schedules, but would never provide that sensitive detail to Congress. Maybe the Congressional tax committees wouldn't ask for it?
Trevor

Sent by Good Messaging (www.good.com)

 -----Original Message-----
From:   Bill Maurer [mailto:wmaurer at ij.org]
Sent:   Friday, November 04, 2011 12:52 PM Eastern Standard Time
To:     Trevor Potter; JBoppjr at aol.com; rhasen at law.uci.edu; law-election at uci.edu
Subject:        RE: [EL] ELB News and Commentary 11/4/11

Trevor,

There are a number of exemptions in FOIA that may (and I stress "may") apply.  Executive privilege, pre-decisional documents, and attorney-client privileged documents all spring to mind.  Assuming their application, these would presumably protect their release to Congressional investigators as they are testimonial privileges as well.

Bill

________________________________

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Trevor Potter
Sent: Friday, November 04, 2011 8:06 AM
To: JBoppjr at aol.com; rhasen at law.uci.edu; law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] ELB News and Commentary 11/4/11

I read all the press coverage of this exchange, and to me it raised a basic government operations question: to what extent can Congress obtain (and then make public ?) prosecutorial guidelines of enforcement entities? Is there a body of law on enforcement privilege out there?

Trevor Potter

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: Friday, November 04, 2011 10:56 AM
To: rhasen at law.uci.edu; law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] ELB News and Commentary 11/4/11

FEC Commissioner McGahn says that the FEC has some "secret law" that the House Committee may subpoena. For all the government transparency buffs, is this something that needs to be made public?  It would also be helpful to know what is in these secret documents.  Could someone who worked at the FEC and saw these comment on that?  Jim Bopp

Click here: House Committee Threatens to Subpoena FEC Records : Roll Call Lobbying & Influence <http://www.rollcall.com/news/house_committee_threatens_to_subpoena_fec_records-210021-1.html?pos=hbtxt>

In a message dated 11/4/2011 10:46:08 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, rhasen at law.uci.edu writes:

        The Ninety-Nine Percent <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25035>

        Posted on November 4, 2011 7:43 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25035>  by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

        Yesterday I began the unit on campaign finance in my election law seminar, and many of the students' reacton papers pointed with admiration to a quote from John S. Shockley, Money in Politics: Judicial Roadblocks to Campaign Finance Reform, 10 Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly 679 (1983), which appears in an annotated footnote in Buckley v. Valeo.  Here's what John wrote:

                If one agrees with the Court that being able to spend only $25,000 to $50,000 annually on campaigning is in fact a substantial restraint upon constitutional expression, what does this say about the rights of the ninety-nine percent of the American electorate who cannot expend even this 'substantially restrained' amount? Since their ability to speak is presumably restrained even more, where are they to look for the protection of their First Amendment rights?

        It is good to know that John's work has stood the test of time, and his 99% reference was entirely prescient!

          <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D25035&title=The%20Ninety-Nine%20Percent&description=>

        Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>  | Comments Off

        Justice Stevens on Redistricting and Courts in the Political Thicket <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25033>

        Posted on November 4, 2011 7:39 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25033>  by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

        From the SCOTUSblog interview <http://www.scotusblog.com/2011/11/an-interview-with-justice-stevens/#more-131024> :

                Question: Let me ask you a more substantive question, arising from your discussion of Reynolds v. Simsand the voting rights cases that the Warren Court decided.  One thing that you have long urged is that the Court ought to care a lot more than it does about partisan gerrymandering.

                Justice Stevens: Absolutely.

                Question:   And at the same time, of course, you also have argued that the Court should stay out of politics in certain instances.  I wonder how you would envision the Court getting involved in something as crass and divisive as partisan gerrymandering while maintaining the public perception of political independence.

                Justice Stevens:  Well it goes back to the fundamental equal protection principle that government has the duty to be impartial.  When it's engaged in districting it should be impartial.

                Nowadays, the political parties acknowledge that they are deliberately trying to gerrymander the districts in a way that will help the majority. I just read a newspaper article the other day about the Maryland redistricting, which is designed to help the Democrats.  That's outrageously unconstitutional in my judgment.  The government cannot gerrymander for the purpose of helping the majority party; the government should be redistricting for the purpose of creating appropriate legislative districts.  And the government ought to start with the notion that districts should be compact and contiguous as statutes used to require.

                Question:   And you think that if the Court got involved in reviewing these kinds of redistricting plans that there would be a way to fend off accusations that the Court is choosing sides in political warfare?

                Justice Stevens:  Oh absolutely.  If the Court followed neutral principles in whatever rules they adopted, the rules would apply equally to the Republicans and Democrats.  I think that line of cases would generate a body of law such as the one-person, one-vote cases that would be administered in a neutral way.  This is one of my major disappointments in my entire career: that I was so totally unsuccessful in persuading the Court on something so obviously correct.  Indeed, I think that the Court's failure to act in this area is one of the things that has contributed to the much greater partisanship in legislative bodies now that wasn't true years ago when I worked on a sub-committee of the House Judiciary Committee.

         <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D25033&title=Justice%20Stevens%20on%20Redistricting%20and%20Courts%20in%20the%20Political%20Thicket&description=>

        Posted in redistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6> , Supreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>  | Comments Off

        "A coalition of voters file first N.C. redistricting lawsuit" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25031>

        Posted on November 4, 2011 7:35 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25031>  by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

        Here <http://projects.newsobserver.com/under_the_dome/a_coalition_of_voters_file_first_nc_redistricting_lawsuit> .

         <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D25031&title=%E2%80%9CA%20coalition%20of%20voters%20file%20first%20N.C.%20redistricting%20lawsuit%E2%80%9D&description=>

        Posted in redistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6> , Voting Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>  | Comments Off

        "Cain Has Long Ties To Koch Brothers-Linked Group" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25028>

        Posted on November 4, 2011 7:32 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25028>  by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

        NPR reports <http://www.npr.org/2011/11/04/142006513/cain-has-long-ties-to-koch-brothers-linked-group> .

         <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D25028&title=%E2%80%9CCain%20Has%20Long%20Ties%20To%20Koch%20Brothers-Linked%20Group%E2%80%9D&description=>

        Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>  | Comments Off

        "County in Colo. has high number on inactive voters" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25025>

        Posted on November 4, 2011 7:27 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25025>  by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

        The Washington Independent reports <http://washingtonindependent.com/115234/county-in-colo-has-high-number-on-inactive-voters> .

         <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D25025&title=%E2%80%9CCounty%20in%20Colo.%20has%20high%20number%20on%20inactive%20voters%E2%80%9D&description=>

        Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>  | Comments Off

        "Will Florida's Dual Election System Breathe Life into Bush v. Gore?" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25022>

        Posted on November 4, 2011 7:25 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25022>  by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

        Dan Smith blogs <http://electionsmith.wordpress.com/2011/11/04/will-floridas-dual-election-system-breathe-life-into-bush-v-gore/> .

         <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D25022&title=%E2%80%9CWill%20Florida%E2%80%99s%20Dual%20Election%20System%20Breathe%20Life%20into%20Bush%20v.%20Gore%3F%E2%80%9D&description=>

        Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>  | Comments Off

        "Election Law as Elective of Choice" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25019>

        Posted on November 4, 2011 7:24 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25019>  by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

        Kirsten Nussbaumer has posted this draft <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1950416>  on SSRN (forthcoming, St. Louis University Law Review symposium on teaching election law).  Here is the abstract:

                This article, an invited contribution to a symposium on teaching election law, presents election law as a field that is fundamentally, inescapably interdisciplinary in nature and, on that account, of special value for our students. The interplay of doctrinal reasoning, empirical political science, and humanistic inquiry that characterizes election law is well-suited for both the traditional law school classroom and a practicum in election law.

         <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D25019&title=%E2%80%9CElection%20Law%20as%20Elective%20of%20Choice%E2%80%9D&description=>

        Posted in pedagogy <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=23>  | Comments Off

        "GOP cries foul on winner-take-all bill" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25016>

        Posted on November 4, 2011 7:12 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25016>  by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

        Republicans work hard <http://www.omaha.com/article/20111104/NEWS01/711049881/0>  to eliminate congressional seat allocation of electoral votes in Nebraska just as they try to implement such a system in Pennsylvania.

         <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D25016&title=%E2%80%9CGOP%20cries%20foul%20on%20winner-take-all%20bill%E2%80%9D&description=>

        Posted in electoral college <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=44>  | Comments Off

        "Congressional Democrats seek to curb tough state voter-screening laws" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25012>

        Posted on November 3, 2011 9:41 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25012>  by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

        McClatchy reports <http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/11/03/2486155/congressional-democrats-seek-to.html> .

         <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D25012&title=%E2%80%9CCongressional%20Democrats%20seek%20to%20curb%20tough%20state%20voter-screening%20laws%E2%80%9D&description=>

        Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18> , The Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>  | Comments Off

        "When an Oversight Hearing Becomes an Oversight" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25009>

        Posted on November 3, 2011 9:15 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25009>  by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

        Meredith McGehee blogs <http://www.clcblog.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=438:when-an-oversight-hearing-becomes-an-oversight-11-3-11> .

         <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D25009&title=%E2%80%9CWhen%20an%20Oversight%20Hearing%20Becomes%20an%20Oversight%E2%80%9D&description=>

        Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>  | Comments Off

        "What is the Justice Department doing about Southern voting rights?" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25007>

        Posted on November 3, 2011 9:13 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25007>  by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

        This item <http://www.southernstudies.org/2011/11/what-is-the-justice-department-doing-about-southern-voting-rights.html>  appears at "Facing South."

         <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D25007&title=%E2%80%9CWhat%20is%20the%20Justice%20Department%20doing%20about%20Southern%20voting%20rights%3F%E2%80%9D&description=>

        Posted in Department of Justice <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=26> , Voting Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>  | Comments Off

        "Wisconsin: AG opinion says LG would not be automatically included in Gov recall" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25005>

        Posted on November 3, 2011 9:12 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25005>  by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

        The Recall Elections Blog reports <http://recallelections.blogspot.com/2011/11/wisconsin-ag-opinion-says-lg-would-not_03.html> .

         <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D25005&title=%E2%80%9CWisconsin%3A%20AG%20opinion%20says%20LG%20would%20not%20be%20automatically%20included%20in%20Gov%20recall%E2%80%9D&description=>

        Posted in recall elections <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=11>  | Comments Off

        "Rokita Questions FEC Bureaucrats on Refusal to Disclose Enforcement Rules" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25002>

        Posted on November 3, 2011 9:09 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25002>  by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

        See this press release <http://rokita.house.gov/press-release/rokita-questions-fec-bureaucrats-refusal-disclose-enforcement-rules> .

         <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D25002&title=%E2%80%9CRokita%20Questions%20FEC%20Bureaucrats%20on%20Refusal%20to%20Disclose%20Enforcement%20Rules%E2%80%9D&description=>

        Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>  | Comments Off

        "FEC Urged to Reject Senator Lee's Attempt to Create a 'Super Leadership PAC' in Comments Filed by Campaign Legal Center & Democracy 21? <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=24999>

        Posted on November 3, 2011 9:07 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=24999>  by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

        See this press release <http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1516:november-3-2011-fec-urged-to-reject-senator-lees-attempt-to-create-a-super-leadership-pac-in-comments-filed-campaign-legal-center-a-democracy-21&catid=63:legal-center-press-releases&Itemid=61> .

         <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D24999&title=%E2%80%9CFEC%20Urged%20to%20Reject%20Senator%20Lee%E2%80%99s%20Attempt%20to%20Create%20a%20%E2%80%98Super%20Leadership%20PAC%E2%80%99%20in%20Comments%20Filed%20by%20Campaign%20Legal%20Center%20%26%>

        Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>  | Comments Off

        "House Panel's Oversight Hearing on FEC Spotlights Divisions Among Commissioners" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=24996>

        Posted on November 3, 2011 9:04 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=24996>  by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

        BNA reports <http://news.bna.com/mpdm/MPDMWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=23324090&vname=mpebulallissues&fn=23324090&jd=a0c9q0j4a9&split=0> .

         <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D24996&title=%E2%80%9CHouse%20Panel%E2%80%99s%20Oversight%20Hearing%20on%20FEC%20Spotlights%20Divisions%20Among%20Commissioners%E2%80%9D&description=>

        Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>  | Comments Off

        "Creating the Voting Rights Act of 2012? <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=24993>

        Posted on November 3, 2011 9:56 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=24993>  by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

        Why Tuesday? is sponsoring this event <http://www.whytuesday.org/why-tuesday-2012-kickoff/>  in D.C. on Tuesday.

         <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D24993&title=%E2%80%9CCreating%20the%20Voting%20Rights%20Act%20of%202012%E2%80%B3&description=>

        Posted in Uncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>  | Comments Off

        "Voter head to Polls to Vote on Voting" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=24991>

        Posted on November 3, 2011 9:55 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=24991>  by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

        That's the lead story in this week's Electionline Weekly <http://www.electionline.org/index.php/electionline-weekly> .

         <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D24991&title=%E2%80%9CVoter%20head%20to%20Polls%20to%20Vote%20on%20Voting%E2%80%9D&description=>

        Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>  | Comments Off

        "Legal Center Calls for FEC Overhaul, Submits Congressional Testimony on Dysfunctional Agency" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=24988>

        Posted on November 3, 2011 9:54 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=24988>  by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

        See this press release <http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1514:november-3-2011-legal-center-calls-for-fec-overhaul-submits-congressional-testimony-on-dysfunctional-agency&catid=63:legal-center-press-releases&Itemid=61> .  See also this NYT editorial. <http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/03/opinion/having-the-watchdogs-to-tea.html?src=tp>

         <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D24988&title=%E2%80%9CLegal%20Center%20Calls%20for%20FEC%20Overhaul%2C%20Submits%20Congressional%20Testimony%20on%20Dysfunctional%20Agency%E2%80%9D&description=>

        Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> , federal election commission <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=24>  | Comments Off

        CREW FOIA Request to FEC Republican Commissioners Leads to Claims of Improper Ex Parte Communications <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=24985>

        Posted on November 3, 2011 9:49 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=24985>  by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

        See this press release <http://www.citizensforethics.org/press/entry/report-reveals-republican-fec-commissioners-working-with-outside-allies>  about this report <http://crew.3cdn.net/e96220a7af6a2d0143_eum6bx04c.pdf> .

         <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D24985&title=CREW%20FOIA%20Request%20to%20FEC%20Republican%20Commissioners%20Leads%20to%20Claims%20of%20Improper%20Ex%20Parte%20Communications&description=>

        Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> , federal election commission <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=24>  | Comments Off

        Dan Backer Live Tweets FEC Congressional Hearing <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=24982>

        Posted on November 3, 2011 8:13 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=24982>  by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

        Here <https://twitter.com/#%21/DBCapStrategies> .

         <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D24982&title=Dan%20Backer%20Live%20Tweets%20FEC%20Congressional%20Hearing&description=>

        Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>  | Comments Off

        "Advocates Seek New Avenues for Corporate Accountability" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=24980>

        Posted on November 3, 2011 8:12 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=24980>  by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

        Lisa Gilbert has written this oped <http://www.citizenvox.org/2011/11/03/advocates-seek-new-avenues-for-corporate-accountability-citizens-united-fec-sec/> .

         <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D24980&title=%E2%80%9CAdvocates%20Seek%20New%20Avenues%20for%20Corporate%20Accountability%E2%80%9D&description=>

        Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>  | Comments Off

        "Arizona Democrats Threaten Recall Elections Over Redistricting" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=24977>

        Posted on November 3, 2011 8:07 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=24977>  by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

        The Fix reports <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/arizona-democrats-threaten-recall-elections-over-redistricting/2011/11/02/gIQA9x2FgM_blog.html> .

         <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D24977&title=%E2%80%9CArizona%20Democrats%20Threaten%20Recall%20Elections%20Over%20Redistricting%E2%80%9D&description=>

        Posted in recall elections <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=11> , redistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>  | Comments Off

        "Agency Nullification at the FEC" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=24975>

        Posted on November 3, 2011 8:06 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=24975>  by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

        Craig Holman and Melanie Sloan have written this op-ed f <http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/67505.html> or Politico.

         <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D24975&title=%E2%80%9CAgency%20Nullification%20at%20the%20FEC%E2%80%9D&description=>

        Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>  | Comments Off

        --
        Rick Hasen
        Professor of Law and Political Science
        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
        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

<- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -> 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.

<- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -> 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.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
****************************************************

To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we advise you that, unless otherwise expressly indicated, any federal tax advice contained in this message 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 applicable state or local tax law provisions or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matters addressed herein.
****************************************************
****************************************************

This email (and any attachments thereto) is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this email (and any attachments thereto) is strictly prohibited. If you receive this email in error please immediately notify me at (212) 735-3000 and permanently delete the original email (and any copy of any email) and any printout thereof.

Further information about the firm, a list of the Partners and their professional qualifications will be provided upon request.
****************************************************
==============================================================================