[EL] April 1 CU Reversal

Sun Apr 1 08:30:11 PDT 2012

"I only realized after hearing all this talk--a lot of it really mean and
nasty--that we'd opened Pandora's Box," Justice Kennedy would later comment
in a surprisingly candid interview. "People actually approached legislators
and told them that a lack of support for certain policy positions would
result in opposition during the election cycle. The Founders didn't
anticipate this kind of corruption. Indeed, the First Amendment is trickier
these days: free speech is not only the purpose behind it, but *also *a
compelling governmental interest for regulation."

When asked how he would reconcile this contradiction in practice, Kennedy
seemed unconcerned. "This is hardly a sweeping opinion, merely a return to
the law pre-*CU*, which worked splendidly."

In completely unrelated news, in the past week a number of Tea Party groups
and businesses launched online newspapers. An online developer working with
these groups, Press Clause LLC, issued a short release describing that
these outlets would place great emphasis on editorial content.

On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 8:56 AM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:

>   Supreme Court Reverses Citizens United Case, 5-4; J. Kennedy Notes
> “Huge Mistake” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=32480>
> Posted on April 1, 2012 7:54 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=32480> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> The Supreme Court, issued a rare weekend<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0>
> opinion <http://www.google.com/racing/> in a case out of Montana.  From
> Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion<http://www.pcmag.com/slideshow/story/296132/page-prank-the-best-online-april-fools-day-jokes>
> :
>
> Just two years ago, this Court held that the First Amendment prevents the
> government from enacting laws limiting corporate spending in elections. We
> stated that the identity of the corporate speaker does not matter, that
> independent spending can neither corrupt the election process nor cause the
> public to lose confidence in the fairness of elections. We also held that
> the government’s “antidistortion” interest in preventing the wealthy from
> drowning out the voice of others is an impermissible end for government
> regulation. We made a huge mistake.
>
> Since 2010, election spending has increased greatly, through the emergence
> of “Super PACs” and misuse of the 501(c)(4) organizational form reserved in
> the Internal Revenue Code for “social welfare” organizations. This Court’s
> opinion in *Citizens United*, coupled by developments in the lower courts
> and the Federal Election Commission, means that a large percentage of the
> money spent in elections will likely be unreported, and it has become
> child’s play for individuals, corporations (and potentially–and
> illegally–even foreign individuals and corporations) to hide their
> identities.
>
> “Enough is enough.” *Cf*. *WRTL II *(opinions of Roberts, C.J.) The
> government has a strong interest in the integrity of its elections and the
> prevention of corruption. Recent experience shows that independent spending
> can indeed corrupt and Congress (and states) may rightly conclude that the
> inevitable conflict of interest stemming from obscenely large amounts of
> money in our elections justifies reasonable limits on campaign
> contributions and spending. As we explain below, *Citizens United* and
> that portion of *Buckley v. Valeo* barring spending limits in elections
> are hereby overruled, leaving open the possibility for the government to
> demonstrate that narrowly tailored campaign contribution and spending
> limits which allow for robust political debate from multiple diverse voices
> are consistent with the First Amendment.
>
> Justice Scalia, for himself, and Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Alito, and
> Justice Thomas issued a brief dissent<http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/04/01/149718325/npr-source-tweets-will-shrink-to-133-characters>,
> which begins:
>
> Are you kidding me?
>
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D32480&title=Supreme%20Court%20Reverses%20Citizens%20United%20Case%2C%205-4%3B%20J.%20Kennedy%20Notes%20%E2%80%9CHuge%20Mistake%E2%80%9D&description=>
>   Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, election
> law "humor" <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=52> | Comments Off
>   Quote of the Day <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=32477>
> Posted on March 31, 2012 2:07 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=32477> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> “And a court that gave us *Bush v. Gore *and *Citizens United* will prove
> conclusively that it sees no limits on its power, no need to defer to those
> elected to make our laws. A Supreme Court that is supposed to give us
> justice will instead deliver ideology.”
>
> –E.J. Dionne<http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/activist-judges-on-trial/2012/03/28/gIQAKdE2gS_story.html>,
> *WaPo*
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D32477&title=Quote%20of%20the%20Day&description=>
>   Posted in Supreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29> | Comments
> Off
>   “Romney under fire for PAC donation to anti-gay marriage group”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=32474>
> Posted on March 31, 2012 2:05 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=32474> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> *WaPo* reports<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/romney-under-fire-for-pac-donation-to-anti-gay-marriage-group/2012/03/30/gIQAm7QolS_blog.html>
> .
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D32474&title=%E2%80%9CRomney%20under%20fire%20for%20PAC%20donation%20to%20anti-gay%20marriage%20group%E2%80%9D&description=>
>   Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> | Comments
> Off
>   “Wisconsin: Republicans to run “fake” candidates in Democratic Senate
> Primaries” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=32472>
> Posted on March 31, 2012 2:04 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=32472> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> This item<http://recallelections.blogspot.com/2012/03/wisconsin-republicans-to-run-fake.html>appears at the Recall Elections Blog.
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D32472&title=%E2%80%9CWisconsin%3A%20Republicans%20to%20run%20%E2%80%9Cfake%E2%80%9D%20candidates%20in%20Democratic%20Senate%20Primaries%E2%80%9D&description=>
>   Posted in chicanery <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>, recall
> elections <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=11> | Comments Off
>   “Primary Turnout Could Signal Trouble for G.O.P.”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=32470>
> Posted on March 31, 2012 2:03 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=32470> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> The *NY Times* reports<http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/31/us/politics/primary-turnout-could-signal-trouble-for-gop.html?_r=1&ref=politics>
> .
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D32470&title=%E2%80%9CPrimary%20Turnout%20Could%20Signal%20Trouble%20for%20G.O.P.%E2%80%9D&description=>
>   Posted in campaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>, voting<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=31>
> | Comments Off
>   “The Impact of Petition Signing on Voter Turnout”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=32467>
> Posted on March 31, 2012 2:00 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=32467> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Janine A. Parry<http://www.springerlink.com/content/?Author=Janine+A.+Parry>,
> Daniel A. Smith<http://www.springerlink.com/content/?Author=Daniel+A.+Smith>and Shayne
> Henry <http://www.springerlink.com/content/?Author=Shayne+Henry> have
> written this article<http://www.springerlink.com/content/02wu6488370u382j/>for
> *Political Behavior*.  Here  is the abstract:
>
> Generally speaking, campaign-related contact motivates voters. One form of
> such contact not much explored in the voter mobilization literature is the
> petitioning for ballot initiatives that occurs with considerable frequency
> in about half the states and even more localities. Using newly-available
> data that allow us to match individual petition signers with their
> subsequent election behavior, we explore the role of having had a hand in a
> ballot measure’s qualifying stage in propelling individual voters to the
> polls. Specifically, we perform multivariate analysis on a random sample of
> 1,000 registered Arkansas voters, 1,100 registered Florida voters, and all
> 71,119 registered voters in Gainesville, Florida to measure the influence
> of petition-signing in spurring voter turnout. We find marginal effects in
> the statewide samples, but substantial and significant turnout effects in
> the Gainesville municipal election—an off-cycle, low-profile election.
> Furthermore, the effect of petition-signing—across all of our samples—is
> strongest among irregular, as compared to habitual, voters. These findings
> are in keeping with recent campaign mobilization experimental research and
> comport with previous findings on the “educative effects” of ballot
> measures on voter turnout.
>
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D32467&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20Impact%20of%20Petition%20Signing%20on%20Voter%20Turnout%E2%80%9D&description=>
>   Posted in petition signature gathering<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=39>,
> voting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=31> | Comments Off
>   “Republicans kill voter-registration measure”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=32465>
> Posted on March 31, 2012 1:58 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=32465> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> News <http://durangoherald.com/article/20120330/NEWS01/703309934/-1/s>from Colorado.
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D32465&title=%E2%80%9CRepublicans%20kill%20voter-registration%20measure%E2%80%9D&description=>
>   Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18> | Comments
> Off
>   “Lobbying Disclosure: Observations on Lobbyists’ Compliance with
> Disclosure Requirements” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=32462>
> Posted on March 31, 2012 1:56 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=32462> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> New GAO report <http://www.gao.gov/assets/590/589805.pdf>.
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D32462&title=%E2%80%9CLobbying%20Disclosure%3A%20Observations%20on%20Lobbyists%E2%80%99%20Compliance%20with%20Disclosure%20Requirements%E2%80%9D&description=>
>   Posted in lobbying <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=28> | Comments Off
>   “Van Hollen, Reformers Win Case Claiming FEC Disclosure Rules for Ads
> Are Too Lax” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=32460>
> Posted on March 31, 2012 1:54 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=32460> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Bloomberg BNA reports<http://news.bna.com/mpdm/MPDMWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=25748903&vname=mpebulallissues&jd=a0d1h4e6p1&split=0>
> .
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D32460&title=%E2%80%9CVan%20Hollen%2C%20Reformers%20Win%20Case%20Claiming%20FEC%20Disclosure%20Rules%20for%20Ads%20Are%20Too%20Lax%E2%80%9D&description=>
>   Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> | Comments
> Off
>   “Koch Brothers, Chamber of Commerce Face Possible Campaign Donation
> Disclosure After Ruling” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=32457>
> Posted on March 30, 2012 5:50 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=32457> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Paul Blumenthal reports
> <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/30/koch-brothers-rove-fec-campaign-donations_n_1392838.html>for
> the *Huffington Post*.
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D32457&title=%E2%80%9CKoch%20Brothers%2C%20Chamber%20of%20Commerce%20Face%20Possible%20Campaign%20Donation%20Disclosure%20After%20Ruling%E2%80%9D&description=>
>   Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> | Comments
> Off
>   “Crankocracy In America; Who really benefitted from Citizens United?”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=32454>
> Posted on March 30, 2012 4:33 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=32454> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Timothy Noah writes<http://www.tnr.com/article/trb/magazine/102114/crankocracy-friess-simmons-oligarchs-election-america>
> .
>
> Of course, we don’t know how much corporate money is coming into our
> elections through 501c4s, and c6s, but we know its there.<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=32366>
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D32454&title=%E2%80%9CCrankocracy%20In%20America%3B%20Who%20really%20benefitted%20from%20Citizens%20United%3F%E2%80%9D&description=>
>   Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> | Comments
> Off
>  Want to Get to Know the Super PAC Super Donors?<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=32449>
> Posted on March 30, 2012 2:45 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=32449> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Spend some time<http://www.npr.org/2012/02/13/146836082/the-superpac-super-donors>with NPR.
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D32449&title=Want%20to%20Get%20to%20Know%20the%20Super%20PAC%20Super%20Donors%3F&description=>
>   Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> | Comments
> Off
> --
> Rick Hasen
> Chancellor's 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
>

-- 
Steve Klein
Staff Attorney & Research Counsel*
Wyoming Liberty Group
www.wyliberty.org

**Licensed to practice law in Illinois. Counsel to the Wyoming Liberty
Group pursuant to Rule 5.5(d) of the Wyoming Rules of Professional Conduct.*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120401/75721095/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1520 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120401/75721095/attachment.png>