[EL] ELB News and Commentary 11/8/11
Steve Hoersting
hoersting at gmail.com
Thu Nov 10 04:34:26 PST 2011
No, Trevor, the appeal to *Buckley* is well placed. Coordinated *
expenditures* are treated as contributions under the Act (and, these days,
coordinated "electioneering communications").
But what did the *Buckley* Court say about the scope of "expenditure," and
the vagueness of its critical phrase, "made for the purpose of influencing
an election"? That's right: "Expenditure" must be limited to express
advocacy.
The terms "expenditure" and "electioneering communication" are not
catch-alls. They carry specific definitions (or should)... to protect
speech -- even when plugged into the statute that prohibits unlimited
coordination.
Steve Hoersting
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 1:28 AM, Trevor Potter <tpotter at capdale.com> wrote:
> The appeal to Buckley here is surely ironic: it was Buckley that defined
> "independent communication" as "wholly uncoordinated with a candidate"--the
> very standard that is not met with these ads.
> Trevor Potter
>
> Sent by Good Messaging (www.good.com)
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Smith, Brad [mailto:BSmith at law.capital.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2011 11:46 PM Eastern Standard Time
> To: Trevor Potter; Rick Hasen
> Cc: law-election at uci.edu
> Subject: RE: Re: [EL] ELB News and Commentary 11/8/11
>
> Many members of the reform community, like Mr. Colbert, have long had
> difficulty understanding the limits on coordinated communication,
> especially content limits to trigger the coordination analysis. Of course,
> this starts with the fact that they don't agree fundamentally with the
> level of protection the Supreme Court has given to political speech. But
> that battle was lost in Buckley, and the ground partially reclaimed by the
> low quality opinions in Austin and McConnell has not been held.
>
>
>
> What I find many reformers struggle with - and it's evident in Trevor's
> comments below, about "coordinated uncoordinated" ads and so on - is that
> the Court's Buckley decision is intended to be highly protective of speech.
> These reformers can't understand why, if the Court allowed some regulation
> of contributions to protect against corruption or its appearance, it can
> then stand by and declare constitutionally protected activity that, they
> believe, has the same or greater corrupting possibility and appearance.
>
>
>
> But one reason the Court struck down limits on independent expenditures is
> that, having held that "expenditure" had to be narrowly defined as
> "explicit advocacy of election or defeat," it realized that expenditure
> limits would be easily evaded by issue ads. In short, the opinion predicts,
> and prohibits regulation of, exactly the type of thing that certain
> reformers suggest justifies more regulation
>
>
>
> What this illustrates is that many speech rules allow regulation in
> theory, but very little in actual practice. They restrict regulation to a
> set of extreme (and often somewhat arbitrary) situations in order to
> protect most speech. Thus, in theory public figures can sue for libel - in
> practice, such suits are very hard to win. In theory, Brandenburg allows
> speech to be regulated that incites to riot - in practice, prosecutors
> rarely try. In theory, porn can be banned - in practice, other than child
> porn, it's pretty hard to imagine anything that is banned. In theory,
> Chaplinsky upholds the validity of prosecutions for "fighting words" - in
> practice, no prosecutor tries to bring such suits because he will lose.
>
>
>
> In other words, the Court frequently allows regulation of types of speech
> only at their most extreme. Such was the case in Buckley, allowing limits
> only on direct contributions to candidates and parties. People who claim
> that this makes these various speech doctrines into jokes, or riddled with
> "loopholes," or nonsensical, simply don't understand the what the Court is
> doing. The Court is not so stupid as Mr. Colbert and Mr. Potter think.
> Reformers such as Mr. Potter and Mr. Colbert take as a given the very thing
> they have failed to convince the Court of - namely, that more regulation of
> political speech would be, on balance, a good thing, or at least a
> constitutional thing.
>
>
>
> Like the core doctrine of express advocacy, content requirements before
> coordinated communications can be limited are intended to protect most
> political speech. Frankly, then, the Colbert/Potter argument against
> content rules simply fails to come to grips with reason for them. This is
> unfortunate, because as a result people are not being educated in why the
> law is as it is. Good satire illuminates. Unfortunately, Mr. Colbert's
> bits, while reasonably humorous, do not.
>
>
>
> Brad Smith
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Trevor Potter [tpotter at capdale.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2011 2:28 PM
> To: Rick Hasen
> Cc: Smith, Brad; law-election at uci.edu
> Subject: RE: Re: [EL] ELB News and Commentary 11/8/11
>
> Well, actually what we "go to the FEC with" is the American Crossroads
> AOR-swhich has the facts as I described them: an advertisement "fully
> coordinated" with a candidate as to message, filmed with the candidate,
> focusing on themes the candidate is emphasizing in his/her campaign, and
> run outside the FEC's coordination "window". So we will see what the
> Commission does with that request by American. Crossroads to approve
> coordinated uncoordinated candidate advertising... Comment letters are
> uselful in illuminating the issues, as this discussion on the list serve
> has been, but not central to the legal outcome, which is why I was
> suggesting that we "assume the facts" as Crossroads has presented them for
> purposes of focusing on the issue before the FEC.
> Trevor
>
> Sent by Good Messaging (www.good.com)
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rick Hasen [mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2011 01:27 PM Eastern Standard Time
> To: Trevor Potter
> Cc: Smith, Brad; law-election at uci.edu
> Subject: Re: [EL] ELB News and Commentary 11/8/11
>
> Your assumption (assume his lips were covered and the phrase fully
> bleeped) reminds me of the joke <
> http://economics.about.com/od/termsbeginningwith1/g/assume_a_can_opener.htm>
> about the economist on the desert island who "assumes" a can opener. (It
> also reminds me of a Yiddish expression which is not suitable for the
> listserv.)
>
> We have to go to the FEC with the facts that we have, not the facts that
> we wish them to be.
>
> On 11/9/2011 10:07 AM, Trevor Potter wrote:
>
> I agree with Brad and Rick that ads containing words of express
> advocacy (vote for me or smith for president) have always been held by the
> FEC to consitute express advocacy, even when the context might suggest
> otherwise. I am out of the US and cannot access the draft ad as submitted
> by the Colbert SuperPAC to the FEC, but the intention was to "bleep" the
> phrase "vote for me.".
>
> Rick and Brad have further noted that lip readers could decifer
> the message even with a full bleep. Accordingly, for election law purposes
> let's assume that the ad proposed to be run bleeps the whole phrase, AND
> covers his lips at the relevant moment! (certainly technilogically possible)
>
> This would place the ad where the Nelson ad is in Nebraska-and
> where American Crossroads says they want to be: an ad about a candidate,
> using film of the candidate, coordinated with the candidate, and featuring
> messages central to the candidate's campaign, but without words of express
> advocacy .
>
> That is the Nelson ad, the American Crossroads AOR, and the point
> of the Colbert comments.
>
> Best
> Trevor
>
> Sent by Good Messaging (www.good.com)
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Smith, Brad [mailto:BSmith at law.capital.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2011 08:52 AM Eastern Standard Time
> To: Trevor Potter
> Cc: law-election at uci.edu
> Subject: RE: Re: [EL] ELB News and Commentary 11/8/11
>
> Trevor, I just watched the ad again on the link directly taken from
> Colbert's comments, and I'm afraid it says "V*** for me." What am I
> missing? This is the link I followed from the comments submitted to the
> FEC: http://www.colbertsuperpac.com/undaunted-non-coordination/. Is there
> supposed to be some other link?
>
> Even if all three words are clearly bleeped out in some other
> version, I think it fails (or passes) the express advocacy test, as anybody
> watching the ad can clearly read Roemer's lips. This is not the subjective
> pre-WRTL test, but rather the objective post-WRTL test. The viewer is not
> left to infer the meaning of the statement; the statement is clear in and
> of itself.
>
> In another post responding to interesting examples made by Tom
> Cares, I noted that the FEC has long struggled with the content element of
> a coordinated communication. As Tom notes, the absence of any content
> element would make little sense - certainly as little as the express
> advocacy standard sometimes does, but without the added virtue of providing
> a bright line test for speakers.
>
> Brad Smith
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Trevor Potter [tpotter at capdale.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2011 8:16 AM
> To: Smith, Brad
> Cc: law-election at uci.edu
> Subject: RE: Re: [EL] ELB News and Commentary 11/8/11
>
> Except it doesn't say "V**e for Buddy Roemer"--it says "**** ***
> ****".. So Brad must be using the famous "subpart B" of the FEC express
> advocacy regulations disavowed by recent GOP Commissioners-an ad "capable
> of no other interpretation"...
>
> Sent by Good Messaging (www.good.com)
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Smith, Brad [mailto:BSmith at law.capital.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2011 08:01 AM Eastern Standard Time
> To: Trevor Potter
> Cc: law-election at uci.edu
> Subject: RE: Re: [EL] ELB News and Commentary 11/8/11
>
> No, and I had taken those facts into acount. The words "vote for
> me" are unmistakeable to any voter, as much as if a written communication
> said "V**e for Buddy Roemer." Indeed, the little bleep effort probably just
> makes it a knowing and willful violation.
>
> - Brad Smith
>
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Trevor Potter [tpotter at capdale.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2011 3:59 AM
> To: Rick Hasen
> Cc: Smith, Brad; law-election at uci.edu
> Subject: RE: Re: [EL] ELB News and Commentary 11/8/11
>
> The ad Mr. Colbert has said he would run if the American Crossroads
> AOR is approved is the one he submitted to the FEC in his comments. As Rick
> notes, that ad does not contain express words of advocacy. Where those were
> in the ad he showed his studio audience there is now a bleep. So viewers of
> the ad as broadcast to advertisers not not include any express words.
> None of this is a secret--the ad he has submitted ti the FEC clearly
> contains the bleep. Does that fact change your views, Brad and Rick?
> Best
> Trevor
>
> Sent by Good Messaging (www.good.com)
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rick Hasen [mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2011 05:26 PM Eastern Standard Time
> To: Trevor Potter
> Cc: Smith, Brad; law-election at uci.edu
> Subject: Re: [EL] ELB News and Commentary 11/8/11
>
> How about Roemer saying "Vote for me"? Don't go all WRTL on me,
> Trevor.
>
> Here's a transcript of the ad which I made by listening. On the
> version on the web, the word "vote" is bleeped out, but it was not bleeped
> last night when I saw it on television:
>
> Roemer: "Hi. I'm Buddy Roemer. God I wish I weren't in this ad.
> See I didn't pay for it. Colbert Super-PAC did. And Super-Pacs are not
> supposed to coordinate with candidates like me. But because this is an
> 'issue ad' about Super-PACs not coordinating with candidates I can be in it
> as long as I don't say [Roemer pauses and faces the camera]: 'Vote for me."
> [On screen are then flashed the words 'Not an endorsement'.]. I say that
> argument is just a fig leaf so super-pacs can justify doing whatever they
> want. And they have a lot of money folks. They built this fake set, with
> fake books, filled with real money. Hell, they even bought Colbert a
> unicorn."
>
> Colbert: "All perfectly legal, Rainbow."
>
> Roemer: "I'm Buddy Roemer and I approve this message. Did you?"
>
> Colbert: "To Narnia."
>
> Announcer: "This issue ad paid for by Americans for Tomorrow,
> Tommorow and approved by Buddy Roemer. No money was harmed in the making
> of this ad."
>
>
>
>
> On 11/8/2011 12:47 PM, Trevor Potter wrote:
>
> It would be enlightening to know why each of you reached
> that conclusion.Are there express words of advocacy? Is it the
> identification of Gov. Roemer as a candidate? is the ad capable of no other
> interpretation (even though the Governor identifies the "issue" of campaign
> finance policy as the reason for the ad?). What is the legal rational for
> your inclusions, Brad and Rick-for the education of the list serve?
>
> Best
> Trevor
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Nov 8, 2011, at 9:05 PM, "Rick Hasen" <
> rhasen at law.uci.edu> <mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
> 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 <mailto:
> bsmith at law.capital.edu> <mailto:bsmith at law.capital.edu>
>
>
> http://www.law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.asp <
> http://www.law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.asp> <
> 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> <
> http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25160>
>
>
> Posted on November 8, 2011 9:10 am <
> http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25160> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25160>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> <
> 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> <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>
> <
> 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> <
> http://electionlawblog.org/?p=24143> WaPo report <http:/
> /electionlawblog.org/?p=24143> <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> <
> 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>
> <
> 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>
> <
> 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/>
> <
> 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://electionlawblog.org/?p=25160#more-25160>
>
> <mime-attachment.png> <
> 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=>
> <
> 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> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
> , election law "humor" <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=52> <
> http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=52> | Comments Off
>
>
> "Fairfax County braces for election
> confusion after voter database glitches" <
> http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25157> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25157>
>
>
> Posted on November 8, 2011 8:53 am <
> http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25157> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25157>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> <
> 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.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/fairfax-county-braces-for-election-confusion-after-voter-database-glitches/2011/11/07/gIQAOCVlwM_story.html>
> .
>
> <mime-attachment.png> <
> 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=>
> <
> 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> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>
> | Comments Off
>
>
> "Lawmakers Struggling Through Pennsylvania
> Redraw" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25154> <
> http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25154>
>
>
> Posted on November 8, 2011 8:49 am <
> http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25154> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25154>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> <
> http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Roll Call reports <http://roll.cl/uWHKin> <
> http://roll.cl/uWHKin> .
>
> <mime-attachment.png> <
> 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=>
> <
> 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> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>
> | Comments Off
>
>
> " Who can vote? Maine and Mississippi
> consider opposite directions" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25151> <
> http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25151>
>
>
> Posted on November 8, 2011 8:46 am <
> http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25151> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25151>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> <
> 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>
> <
> 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://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/11/maine_gop_ad_the_gays_are_trying_to_impose_same_day_voter_registration.php>
> .
>
> <mime-attachment.png> <
> 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=>
> <
> 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> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>
> , The Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60> <
> http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60> | Comments Off
>
>
> Colbert on OWS <
> http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25148> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25148>
>
>
> Posted on November 7, 2011 8:40 pm <
> http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25148> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25148>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> <
> 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>
> <
> 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>
> <
> 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!
>
>
>
> <mime-attachment.png> <
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D25148&title=Colbert%20on%20OWS&description=>
> <
> 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> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=52>
> | Comments Off
>
>
> "Mitt Romney Winning Fundraising Contest
> For Bush, McCain Bundlers" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25145> <
> http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25145>
>
>
> Posted on November 7, 2011 4:15 pm <
> http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25145> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25145>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> <
> 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.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/07/mitt-romney-fundraising-bush-mccain-bundlers_n_1080245.html?ref=politics>
> .
>
> <mime-attachment.png> <
> 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=>
> <
> 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> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
> | Comments Off
>
>
> "iPad Voting Rolls Out For Some Oregonians"
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25142> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25142
> >
>
>
> Posted on November 7, 2011 4:09 pm <
> http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25142> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25142>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> <
> http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Helping voters with disabilities <
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/07/ipad-voting-oregon_n_1080691.html?ref=technology>
> <
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/07/ipad-voting-oregon_n_1080691.html?ref=technology>
> (not Internet voting).
>
> <mime-attachment.png> <
> 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=>
> <
> 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> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>
> | Comments Off
>
>
> "Voter Fraud: Does It Happen?" <
> http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25139> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25139>
>
>
> Posted on November 7, 2011 3:42 pm <
> http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25139> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25139>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> <
> http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Andrew Rosenthal blogs <
> http://loyalopposition.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/07/voter-fraud-does-it-happen/?src=tp>
> <
> http://loyalopposition.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/07/voter-fraud-does-it-happen/?src=tp>
> at the NYT oped page's "Loyal Opposition" blog.
>
> <mime-attachment.png> <
> 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=>
> <
> 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> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>
> , The Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60> <
> http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60> , voter id <
> http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>
> | Comments Off
>
>
> Raskin and Richie on Gerrymandering in
> Maryland and Beyond <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25136> <
> http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25136>
>
>
> Posted on November 7, 2011 2:55 pm <
> http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25136> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25136>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> <
> http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Here <
> http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-voting-districts-20111107,0,3418353.story>
> <
> http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-voting-districts-20111107,0,3418353.story>
> , in the Baltimore Sun.
>
> <mime-attachment.png> <
> 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=>
> <
> 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> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>
> | Comments Off
>
>
> "As Political Groups Push Envelope, FEC
> Gridlock Gives 'De Facto Green Light'" <
> http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25134> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25134>
>
>
> Posted on November 7, 2011 2:54 pm <
> http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25134> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25134>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> <
> http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> ProPublica reports <
> http://www.propublica.org/article/as-political-donors-push-envelope-fec-gridlock-gives-de-facto-green-light>
> <
> 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.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2011/01/the_fec_is_as_good_as_dead.html
> >
>
> <mime-attachment.png> <
> 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=>
> <
> 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> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
> | Comments Off
>
>
> Watch the Jack Abramoff Interview on "60
> Minutes" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25131> <
> http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25131>
>
>
> Posted on November 7, 2011 12:40 pm <
> http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25131> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25131>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> <
> http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Here <
> http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7387331n&tag=contentMain;cbsCarousel>
> <
> http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7387331n&tag=contentMain;cbsCarousel>
> .
>
> <mime-attachment.png> <
> 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=>
> <
> 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> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>
> , legislation and legislatures <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=27> <
> http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=27> , lobbying <
> http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=28> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=28>
> | Comments Off
>
>
> 26 Recalls on Ballot Tomorrow <
> http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25128> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25128>
>
>
> Posted on November 7, 2011 10:25 am <
> http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25128> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25128>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> <
> http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Wow <
> http://recallelections.blogspot.com/2011/11/26-recalls-on-tuesday-recall-elections.html>
> <
> http://recallelections.blogspot.com/2011/11/26-recalls-on-tuesday-recall-elections.html>
> .
>
> <mime-attachment.png> <
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D25128&title=26%20Recalls%20on%20Ballot%20Tomorrow&description=>
> <
> 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> <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
>
>
> --
> 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
>
>
> <- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ->
> 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 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.
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
>
>
> --
> 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
>
>
> <- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ->
> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
>
--
Stephen M. Hoersting
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20111110/689a9162/attachment.html>
View list directory