[EL] voter id laws and boycotts

Mon Apr 16 20:25:19 PDT 2012

Brad,

Agreed, this issue is far more complex than a simple survey item can capture.  I found it ironic that the same day this Rasmussen poll was released, the "Buffett tax" was defeated, even though  support has hovered around 65%: 

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/04/how_popular_is_the_buffett_rule.php?ref=fpblg

I noted a few other observations at electionupdates.caltech.edu, for example, 55% of respondents in a 2007 poll said that anyone who could not speak English should nt be allowed to vote.  As I wrote there, luckily we don't allocate rights and liberties by public opinion poll.

---
Paul Gronke     Ph: 503-517-7393
Reed College and Early Voting
 Information Center

http://earlyvoting.net

On Apr 16, 2012, at 7:32 PM, "Smith, Brad" <BSmith at law.capital.edu> wrote:

> “73% Think Photo ID Requirement Before Voting Does Not Discriminate”
> Posted on April 16, 2012 12:37 pm by Rick Hasen
> New Rasmussen survey.
> If voter i.d. laws are so popular, is there still reason to oppose them? Yes.
> 
> Now, here's another question: given that voter i.d. laws are so popular, can it really be that corporations are scared to death to be associated with an organization associated with them (ALEC)? Wouldn't we expect corporations to want to be associated with such a popular cause?
> This suggests that the boycott issue we've discussed here the last few days is a bit more complex than Mark Schmidt seems to think. 
> 
> Bradley A. Smith
> 
> Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault
> 
>    Professor of Law
> 
> Capital University Law School
> 
> 303 E. Broad St.
> 
> Columbus, OH 43215
> 
> 614.236.6317
> 
> http://law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx
> 
> From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] on behalf of Rick Hasen [rhasen at law.uci.edu]
> Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 4:41 PM
> To: law-election at uci.edu
> Subject: [EL] Breaking news: federal contractor contribution case, more news
> 
> Breaking News: Federal Court Rejects Challenge to Ban on Contractor Contributions to Federal Candidates
> 
> Posted on April 16, 2012 1:38 pm by Rick Hasen
> You can read the 26-page decision denying the preliminary injunction at this link. (H/t Bloomberg BNA) The court held that the ban on contractor contributions was “closely drawn” to the government’s anticorruption interest, and that current evidence of a problem of corruption was unnecessary:
> 
> This same factor is at play here. When Congress first enacted the ban on political contributions by federal contractors, it was responding to a recent history of corruption. As just discussed, the ban was originally passed in 1940 on the heels of the  “campaign-book racket,” in which those seeking government contracts were effectively required to buy copies of the Democratic campaign book at highly inflated prices in order to secure government business. 84 Cong. Rec. 9598-99 (1939). In the wake of this scandal, it was eminently reasonable for the legislature to ban contributions by federal contractors. Doing so would not only insulate prospective contractors from pressure to give money to politicians, but it would also help ensure a merit-based system of awarding contracts and “reassure[] citizens that its politicians are acting on their behalf and not on behalf of the highest bidder.” Preston, 660 F.3d at 741. Because, just as in Green Party, Congress reacted to recent scandals in imposing the ban on contractor contributions, its restrictions are more easily characterized as closely drawn. Plaintiffs argue that there is no current evidence that individual federal contractors may corrupt the election process or be pressured to give. An absence of corruption does not necessarily mean, however, that the ban is no longer needed. It could simply be an indication that the ban is working. See Burson v. Freeman, 504 U.S. 191, 208 (1992) (noting difficulty of finding evidence to support long-enforced statutes). Nor is it possible to say that the role of money in federal campaigns has diminished; indeed, the converse is incontrovertibly true. See Wisconsin Right to Life, 551 U.S. at 507 (“If the threat … flowing from concentrations of money in politics has reached an unprecedented enormity, it has been gathering force for generations.”).
> As a result, the suggestion that those seeking federal contracts might “pay to play” is hardly novel or implausible. See Shrink Missouri, 528 U.S. at 391 (“The quantum of empirical evidence needed to satisfy heightened judicial scrutiny … will vary up or down with the novelty and plausibility of the justification raised.”). It in no way stretches the imagination to envision that individuals might make campaign contributions to curry political favor. Examples of such behavior abound, as Connecticut’s recent corruption scandals demonstrate. See, e.g., Green Party, 616 F.3d 189, 193 (discussing corruption scandals in Connecticut that preceded ban); see also Ognibene v. Parkes, 671 F.3d 174, 188-89 (2d Cir. 2012) (imposition of lower contribution limits on those who do business with New York City “responded to actual pay-to-play scandals in [the city] in the 1980s”); Blount v. SEC, 61 F.3d 938, 944-45 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (specific evidence of quid pro quo corruption unnecessary because “underwriters’ campaign contributions self-evidently create a conflict of interest in state and local officials who have power over municipal securities contracts and a risk that they will award the contracts on the basis of benefit to their campaign chests rather than to the governmental entity”; “risk of corruption is obvious and substantial”). The threat of corruption addressed by the provision at issue here is thus far from “illusory,” see Ognibene, 671 F.3d at 183, but instead provides a reasonable basis for restricting political contributions by federal contractors.
> 
> It will be interesting to watch this case on its inevitable appeal to the D.C. Circuit, and potentially to the Supreme Court.
> 
> <share_save_171_16.png>
> Posted in campaign finance | Comments Off
> “73% Think Photo ID Requirement Before Voting Does Not Discriminate”
> 
> Posted on April 16, 2012 12:37 pm by Rick Hasen
> New Rasmussen survey.
> 
> If voter i.d. laws are so popular, is there still reason to oppose them? Yes.
> 
> <share_save_171_16.png>
> Posted in election administration, The Voting Wars, voter id | Comments Off
> “MacArthur Grants to Support Campaign Finance Research, Information Sharing, and Efforts to Improve Elections Process”
> 
> Posted on April 16, 2012 12:15 pm by Rick Hasen
> Must be some happy people in the campaign finance reform world today.
> 
> <share_save_171_16.png>
> Posted in campaign finance, election law biz | Comments Off
> Naked Quote of the Day
> 
> Posted on April 16, 2012 9:45 am by Rick Hasen
> “This is an ‘emperor has no clothes on’ moment. It is the responsibility of the IRS to tell Crossroads GPS that it ‘has no clothes on,’ and that it does not qualify as a tax-exempt 501(c)(4) ‘social welfare’ organization.”
> 
> –Fred Wertheimer, in an emailed press release ” Rove-Backed Tax-Exempt ‘Social Welfare’ Organization, Crossroads GPS, Reportedly Received a $10 Million Secret Contribution for Obama Attack Ads”
> 
> <share_save_171_16.png>
> Posted in campaign finance | 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120416/e7c02428/attachment.html>