[EL] Moot single-subject question, I haven't been able to stop thinking about

[Thomas J. Cares]

This question is completely unnecessary, and perhaps very complex to boot.

Perhaps it should just be ignored.

But for some reason, I have not been able to get it out of my head for the
last 3 months or so:

*Might California's Prop 32 have violated the single-subject rule?*

The initiative would have prohibited corporations and unions from giving
directly to candidate campaigns.

But then, it also would have prohibited funds derived from "automatic
deductions" of employees' pay checks (by unions or corporations) from being
contributed to PACs.

*My question, then, is, if the latter is in the scope of campaign finance
reform, wouldn't it be unconstitutional under Citizens United.*
*
*
*Then, if it would only be constitutional under the scope of employment
law, would the initiative then violate the single subject rule?*

This might seem to adopt too strict of an interpretation of the single
subject rule, but probing into, I consider that
1) Under Citizens United, the initiative could not have also prohibited
corporate contributions to PACs from their treasuries; and
2) The only way, under Citizens United, that you could justify this
prohibiting PAC contributions from union treasuries, is to take it as a
matter of employment law. Under Citizens United, it could not be
constitutional to impose this restriction on unions for the purposes of
campaign finance reform.

Therefore, it seems to me that Prop 32, had it passed, may very well have
been in violation of the single subject rule.


I apologize if this has already been pondered on the listserv before. Also,
with its moot-ness and unusual-ness, it may be fit for us to ignore the
question. However, I have not been able to shake this curiosity for the
last 3 months, so I thought maybe I should just post it, and see if anyone
wants to share their take on it.


Thomas Cares
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20121208/0913ec12/attachment.html>