[EL] ELB News and Commentary 11/8/11
Paul Ryan
PRyan at campaignlegalcenter.org
Thu Nov 10 09:12:19 PST 2011
I agree with Steve that an appeal to Buckley is well placed-but for a
very different reason and outcome. Far from Steve's claim that Buckley
said the term "expenditure" must be limited to "express advocacy" when
it comes to expenditures coordinated with candidates, Buckley stands for
the opposite proposition.
The Buckley Court recognized the importance of candidate contribution
limits to preventing corruption and made clear that "expenditures
controlled by or coordinated with the candidate and his campaign might
well have virtually the same value to the candidate as a contribution
and would pose similar dangers of abuse." 424 U.S. 1, 46. For this
reason, "such controlled or coordinated expenditures are treated as
contributions rather than expenditures under the Act." Id. (emphasis
added). The Court explained that FECA's contribution limits, rather
than the independent expenditure limit invalidated by the Court,
"prevent attempts to circumvent the Act through prearranged or
coordinated expenditures amounting to disguised contributions." Id. at
46-47.
Buckley firmly established that "expenditures controlled by or
coordinated with candidates" must be treated as contributions, in order
to prevent circumvention of the candidate contribution limits. And
nowhere does Buckley suggest that the definition of "contribution"
should be limited to "express advocacy."
And further, with respect to "expenditures" by candidates and political
committees (construed as groups under the control of candidates or with
the major purpose of nominating or electing candidates), the Buckley
Court explicitly held that FECA's "for the purpose of influencing"
definition of "expenditure" is wholly permissible because "expenditures"
by candidates and political committees "fall within the core area sought
to be addressed by Congress" and "are, by definition, campaign related."
Id. at 78-79.
The "express advocacy" standard was only employed by the Buckley Court
in the context of "independent expenditures" by non-"major purpose"
groups, id. at 43-44, 79-80, and has no application with respect to
coordinated expenditures, generally, or to any expenditures by
"political committees" like American Crossroads and the Colbert Super
PAC.
Paul Seamus Ryan
FEC Program Director & Associate Legal Counsel
The Campaign Legal Center
215 E Street NE
Washington, DC 20002
Ph. (202) 736-2200 ext. 14
Mobile Ph. (202) 262-7315
Fax (202) 736-2222
Website: http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/
Blog: http://www.clcblog.org/
To sign up for the CLC Blog, visit:
http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/index.php?option=com_forme&fid=1&Item
id=63
Follow us on Twitter @CampaignLegal <http://bit.ly/j8Q1bg>
Become a fan on Facebook <http://on.fb.me/jroDv2>
From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
[mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of
Steve Hoersting
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 7:34 AM
To: Trevor Potter
Cc: law-election at uci.edu; Smith, Brad
Subject: Re: [EL] ELB News and Commentary 11/8/11
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 <tel:%28614%29%20236-6317>
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-move
s-from-colbert-super-pac/>
<http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2011/08/11/pm-first-move
s-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%20PAC
s%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%20PAC
s%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-f
or-election-confusion-after-voter-database-glitches/2011/11/07/gIQAOCVlw
M_story.html>
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/fairfax-county-braces-f
or-election-confusion-after-voter-database-glitches/2011/11/07/gIQAOCVlw
M_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%20electio
n%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%20electio
n%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%20Pennsy
lvania%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%20Pennsy
lvania%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%20Mi
ssissippi%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%20Mi
ssissippi%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-3
1-2011/colbert-super-pac---occupy-wall-street-co-optportunity---stephen-
on-location>
<http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/401092/october-3
1-2011/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-m
ccain-bundlers_n_1080245.html?ref=politics>
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/07/mitt-romney-fundraising-bush-m
ccain-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%20C
ontest%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%20C
ontest%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.h
tml?ref=technology>
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/07/ipad-voting-oregon_n_1080691.h
tml?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-20
111107,0,3418353.story>
<http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-voting-districts-20
111107,0,3418353.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%2
0Maryland%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%2
0Maryland%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/t
he_fec_is_as_good_as_dead.html>
<http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2011/01/t
he_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;cbsCaro
usel>
<http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7387331n&tag=contentMain;cbsCaro
usel> .
<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-recal
l-elections.html>
<http://recallelections.blogspot.com/2011/11/26-recalls-on-tuesday-recal
l-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/d4655181/attachment.html>
View list directory