[EL] ELB News and Commentary 11/8/11

Tue Nov 8 16:26:37 PST 2011

Outside of the legality of the issue, I can’t see where Roemer could possibly think this would help him with Republican primary voters.  I suppose he’s running just to make a point about campaign finance reform and not to actually win, but this will probably drive his poll numbers even closer to zero.  Such a result would be more likely to suggest disinterest in the issue rather than a desire for reform--at least among Republicans and the tea party, who many have identified as a potential constituency to push for campaign finance reforms.

Bill

________________________________

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Thomas J. Cares
Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2011 3:49 PM
To: Rick Hasen
Cc: law-election at uci.edu; Smith,Brad
Subject: Re: [EL] ELB News and Commentary 11/8/11

I feel ethically obligated to preface this message with the disclosure (and confession) that I am not an authority on this to any extent (certainly based on credentials).

I have a fairly strong disagreement with Brad and Rick, and it seems plausible that this may not be because of difference in expertise or difference of opinion but that they have not fully considered the unique facts here.

These are the facts I find relevant, that make me think the ad should probably be allowed:

>Colbert has clearly, for some time, been on an ongoing mission to educate the public about the ways super pacs can be used to circumvent, and even render meaningless, the intentions of popular long-lasting campaign finance laws. This ad unequivocally seems genuinely consistent with that issue.

>The ad doesn't seem to promote Buddy Roemer's résumé or intentions, should he become president, in any way. Of course, exposure can be very valuable to a candidate (and I suppose allowing super pacs to provide something so potentially valuable to candidates risks quid quo pro), but the focus of the ad is clearly an issue and the ad doesn't go out of its way to offer substantive facts about Buddy Roemer.

[An insanely-loud jackhammer outside my window has caused me to forget my 3rd reason/mitigating fact]

In my mind (which again is admittedly not an expert here), the main reason to prohibit the ad would be if it just seemed necessary - perhaps to prevent excessive arbitrary license in decisions that are highly prone to bias - to draw a hard line  against candidates appearing in ads funded by super pacs, notwithstanding any unique facts in the case.

After writing all of the above, I'm starting to feel somewhat inclined to change my position, and while that might normally cause me to abort the email, I'm thinking that while I may have lost conviction in my original feeling, the above could serve by playing devil's advocate. Here are my (newer) thoughts that pull me the other way:

1. I wonder if one of the points a commissioner made at Colbert's FEC hearing is relevant here - that there's no real regulation on media satire (specifically citing Saturday Night Live political skits), but that this is different (if I understood correctly) because, instead of just doing it as a satirist, Colbert was deliberately seeking an advisory opinion affecting, generally, what super pacs may do, and how media exemptions may be used, without the requisite of satire. In fact, the very point of having a candidate in this ad seems to be satire. And perhaps, absent the goal of satire, there would be no justification to have a candidate in the ad, and therefore arguably no compelling reason to allow Colbert to run this ad through a super pac.

2. "In general, are there bona fide needs to have candidates in issue ads to not cut short the efficacy of issue advocates, or are such hypothetical needs fictitious and is this just something that's too likely to be in bad faith and too difficult to arbitrate objectively?" On the other hand, you could say that free speech is so important, that that shouldn't matter. Almost like "it's better to let 1000 guilty people go free than have 1 innocent person go to prison", you could argue it's better to let 1,000 bad actors exploit a loophole, than to restrict 1 genuine actor's fundamental right to issue advocacy (if jail time were on the table for a violation, then I suppose it's even the same saying).

[I'm surrendering to the jack-hammer. I'm sure I have more thoughts, but I'll end this email here, and possibly add them later.]

Thomas Cares

Tom at TomCares.com

2011/11/8 Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu>

It is not every day that Brad Smith and I would vote the same way on an issue before the FEC.  

On 11/8/2011 11:22 AM, Smith, Brad wrote: 

If I were still an FEC Commissioner, based on what I know, I would find that the Colbert/Roemer ad was a coordinated communication containing express advocacy and thus could not be paid for by Colbert’s PAC.  

Bradley A. Smith

Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault 

  Designated Professor of Law

Capital University Law School

303 East Broad Street

Columbus, OH 43215

(614) 236-6317

bsmith at law.capital.edu

http://www.law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.asp

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Rick Hasen
Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2011 11:22 AM
To: law-election at uci.edu
Subject: [EL] ELB News and Commentary 11/8/11

Must-Watch Colbert Segments on Super PACs and Coordination with Candidates <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25160>  

Posted on November 8, 2011 9:10 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25160>  by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>  

It is not easy to make the complex world of campaign finance comprehensible, much less entertaining. One unanswered question in the current campaign finance world is whether Super PACs may feature candidates in their ads if they do so far enough out before the election.  For background on the issue, see this post <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=24164>  linking to this NYT report <http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/13/us/politics/ben-nelsons-campaign-ads-may-break-new-ground.html?hp>  on Ben Nelson and this <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=24143> WaPo report <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=24143>  on American Crossroads seeking to emulate and expand on the Nelson strategy.  The American Crossroads request for an advisory opinion with the FEC is here <http://saos.nictusa.com/aodocs/1188794.pdf> .

Stephen Colbert took this issue on last night, with some help from Trevor Potter, and it was brilliant performance art.  Not only did Colbert feature a segment explaining <http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/401673/november-07-2011/colbert-super-pac---issue-ads>  the issue.  He followed it up with a segment with <http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/401674/november-07-2011/colbert-super-pac---issue-ads---trevor-potter> Trevor Potter explaining that Colbert’s Super PAC is submitting comments on the American Crossroads AO request, and an actual ad <http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/401632/november-07-2011/colbert-super-pac-ad---undaunted-non-coordination>  coordinated with presidential candidate Buddy Roemer (who not coincidentally has made campaign finance reform his signature issue).

I criticized Colbert for playing with fire <http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2011/08/11/pm-first-moves-from-colbert-super-pac/> with the “Rick Parry” issue, and maybe this is playing with fire too.  But he’s done more to educate the general public about the troublesome nature of super PACs than anyone else in the media or academia.

Below the fold I’ve reprinted the Colbert comment on the American Crossroads AO.

Continue reading → <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25160#more-25160> 

  <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D25160&title=Must-Watch%20Colbert%20Segments%20on%20Super%20PACs%20and%20Coordination%20with%20Candidates&description=> 

Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> , election law "humor" <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=52>  | Comments Off 

“Fairfax County braces for election confusion after voter database glitches” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25157>  

Posted on November 8, 2011 8:53 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25157>  by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>  

WaPo reports <http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/fairfax-county-braces-for-election-confusion-after-voter-database-glitches/2011/11/07/gIQAOCVlwM_story.html> .

 <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D25157&title=%E2%80%9CFairfax%20County%20braces%20for%20election%20confusion%20after%20voter%20database%20glitches%E2%80%9D&description=> 

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

“Lawmakers Struggling Through Pennsylvania Redraw” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25154>  

Posted on November 8, 2011 8:49 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25154>  by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>  

Roll Call reports <http://roll.cl/uWHKin> .

 <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D25154&title=%E2%80%9CLawmakers%20Struggling%20Through%20Pennsylvania%20Redraw%E2%80%9D&description=> 

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

” Who can vote? Maine and Mississippi consider opposite directions” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25151>  

Posted on November 8, 2011 8:46 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25151>  by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>  

The Christian Science Monitor reports <http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/2011/1108/Who-can-vote-Maine-and-Mississippi-consider-opposite-directions> .  TPM offers Maine GOP Ad: The Gays Are Trying To Impose Same Day Voter Registration <http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/11/maine_gop_ad_the_gays_are_trying_to_impose_same_day_voter_registration.php> .

 <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D25151&title=%E2%80%9D%20Who%20can%20vote%3F%20Maine%20and%20Mississippi%20consider%20opposite%20directions%E2%80%9D&description=> 

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

Colbert on OWS <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25148>  

Posted on November 7, 2011 8:40 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25148>  by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>  

Don’t miss Parts I <http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/401092/october-31-2011/colbert-super-pac---occupy-wall-street-co-optportunity---stephen-on-location>  and II <http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/401261/november-01-2011/colbert-super-pac---stephen-colbert-occupies-occupy-wall-street-pt--2>  (especially Part II discussing Citizens United and whether corporations are people).  Hilarious!

 <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D25148&title=Colbert%20on%20OWS&description=> 

Posted in election law "humor" <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=52>  | Comments Off 

“Mitt Romney Winning Fundraising Contest For Bush, McCain Bundlers” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25145>  

Posted on November 7, 2011 4:15 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25145>  by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>  

HuffPo reports <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/07/mitt-romney-fundraising-bush-mccain-bundlers_n_1080245.html?ref=politics> .

 <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D25145&title=%E2%80%9CMitt%20Romney%20Winning%20Fundraising%20Contest%20For%20Bush%2C%20McCain%20Bundlers%E2%80%9D&description=> 

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

“iPad Voting Rolls Out For Some Oregonians” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25142>  

Posted on November 7, 2011 4:09 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25142>  by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>  

Helping voters with disabilities <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/07/ipad-voting-oregon_n_1080691.html?ref=technology>  (not Internet voting).

 <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D25142&title=%E2%80%9CiPad%20Voting%20Rolls%20Out%20For%20Some%20Oregonians%E2%80%9D&description=> 

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

“Voter Fraud: Does It Happen?” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25139>  

Posted on November 7, 2011 3:42 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25139>  by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>  

Andrew Rosenthal blogs <http://loyalopposition.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/07/voter-fraud-does-it-happen/?src=tp> at the NYT oped page’s “Loyal Opposition” blog.

 <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D25139&title=%E2%80%9CVoter%20Fraud%3A%20Does%20It%20Happen%3F%E2%80%9D&description=> 

Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18> , The Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60> , voter id <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>  | Comments Off 

Raskin and Richie on Gerrymandering in Maryland and Beyond <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25136>  

Posted on November 7, 2011 2:55 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25136>  by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>  

Here <http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-voting-districts-20111107,0,3418353.story> , in the Baltimore Sun.

 <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D25136&title=Raskin%20and%20Richie%20on%20Gerrymandering%20in%20Maryland%20and%20Beyond&description=> 

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

“As Political Groups Push Envelope, FEC Gridlock Gives ‘De Facto Green Light’” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25134>  

Posted on November 7, 2011 2:54 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25134>  by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>  

ProPublica reports <http://www.propublica.org/article/as-political-donors-push-envelope-fec-gridlock-gives-de-facto-green-light> . As I’ve written in @Slate, the FEC is as good as dead. <http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2011/01/the_fec_is_as_good_as_dead.html> 

 <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D25134&title=%E2%80%9CAs%20Political%20Groups%20Push%20Envelope%2C%20FEC%20Gridlock%20Gives%20%E2%80%98De%20Facto%20Green%20Light%E2%80%99%E2%80%9D&description=> 

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

Watch the Jack Abramoff Interview on “60 Minutes” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25131>  

Posted on November 7, 2011 12:40 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25131>  by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>  

Here <http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7387331n&tag=contentMain;cbsCarousel> .

 <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D25131&title=Watch%20the%20Jack%20Abramoff%20Interview%20on%20%E2%80%9C60%20Minutes%E2%80%9D&description=> 

Posted in chicanery <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12> , legislation and legislatures <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=27> , lobbying <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=28>  | Comments Off 

26 Recalls on Ballot Tomorrow <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25128>  

Posted on November 7, 2011 10:25 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25128>  by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>  

Wow <http://recallelections.blogspot.com/2011/11/26-recalls-on-tuesday-recall-elections.html> .

 <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D25128&title=26%20Recalls%20on%20Ballot%20Tomorrow&description=> 

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

-- 
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

_______________________________________________
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/20111108/6c3e03a3/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 1551 bytes
Desc: image001.gif
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20111108/6c3e03a3/attachment.gif>