[EL] My side is completely right on Super PACs

Steve Hoersting hoersting at gmail.com
Wed Feb 8 13:14:06 PST 2012 

Better begin the *ad hominem* attacks with me, Bill!  I think the *Star Wars
* prequels warn of the dangers of any "Trade Federation" getting into bed
with the government, and of the risks in granting "new executive powers to
the Chancellor [Palpatine]."

;)

Steve

On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 3:57 PM, Bill Maurer <wmaurer at ij.org> wrote:

>  I try not to be disagreeable even when I disagree, but I see your
> point.  As I understand your position, a right can be restricted if it
> interferes with some other societal interest, like protecting someone’s
> reputation or protecting public property and public health.  I disagree
> that political speech causes similar ills, even if one were to accept that
> it can constitutionally be limited, which I don’t.  However, your
> explanation helps.****
>
> ** **
>
> See, that wasn’t disagreeable.  However, I reserve the right to make ad
> hominem, scurrilous attacks on people who think the Star Wars prequels were
> any good.****
>
> ** **
>
> I’ve also changed the email subject to adhere with Rick’s policy.****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Dale Eisman [mailto:DEisman at CommonCause.org]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 08, 2012 12:49 PM
> *To:* Bill Maurer; JBoppjr at aol.com; sbagen at gmail.com; rhasen at law.uci.edu
> *Cc:* law-election at uci.edu
> *Subject:* RE: [EL] ELB News and Commentary 2/8/12****
>
> ** **
>
> I try to avoid arguments with lawyers --  you folks have degrees in the
> art of being disagreeable – but it seems to me that it ought to be possible
> to fashion limits on political spending consistent with the First
> Amendment. ****
>
> Freedom of speech does not mean we can’t punish those who engage in
> slander. As we’ve seen recently, freedom of assembly does not mean that
> demonstrators can camp indefinitely in public parks. Either of those
> activities may be political, but we’ve found ways to regulate them without
> inhibiting public debate.****
>
> ** **
>
> -----------------------------------------------****
>
> Dale Eisman****
>
> Senior researcher/writer****
>
> Common Cause -- *Holding Power Accountable*
>
> 1133 19th St NW****
>
> Washington, D.C. 20036****
>
> 202 736-5788****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Bill Maurer [mailto:wmaurer at ij.org]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 08, 2012 1:25 PM
> *To:* Dale Eisman; JBoppjr at aol.com; sbagen at gmail.com; rhasen at law.uci.edu
> *Cc:* law-election at uci.edu
> *Subject:* RE: [EL] ELB News and Commentary 2/8/12****
>
> ** **
>
> Dale,****
>
> ** **
>
> If I understand your position correctly, the government should be able to
> regulate and restrict political spending because those spending “will
> expect, and often receive, something in return.”  However, I can’t see a
> stopping point for that principle.  It would seem that if that is
> sufficient justification for regulating political activity, then all
> political activity (financial or otherwise) could be subject to regulation
> and restriction.  Where does the First Amendment come into that calculus?*
> ***
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks,****
>
> ** **
>
> Bill Maurer ****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [
> mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>]
> *On Behalf Of *Dale Eisman
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 08, 2012 9:30 AM
> *To:* JBoppjr at aol.com; sbagen at gmail.com; rhasen at law.uci.edu
> *Cc:* law-election at uci.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] ELB News and Commentary 2/8/12****
>
> ** **
>
> I don’t accept the assertion that simply because the Court has decreed it,
> quid pro quo corruption is impossible with Super PACs.****
>
> What concerns me is that a FEW people, not more, are spending ridiculous
> amounts of money. I expect that like all prudent investors they will
> expect, and often receive, something in return.****
>
> -----------------------------------------------****
>
> Dale Eisman****
>
> Senior researcher/writer****
>
> Common Cause -- *Holding Power Accountable*
>
> 1133 19th St NW****
>
> Washington, D.C. 20036****
>
> 202 736-5788****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* JBoppjr at aol.com [mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 08, 2012 12:16 PM
> *To:* Dale Eisman; sbagen at gmail.com; rhasen at law.uci.edu
> *Cc:* law-election at uci.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] ELB News and Commentary 2/8/12****
>
> ** **
>
>     Dale, what do you mean by "corrupt?"  I understand you to mean that
> more people will spend more money on campaigns, not that there will be more
> "quid pro quo" corruption, which is what the Supreme Court looks at. "Quid
> pro quo" corruption is impossible with a Super PAC because they cannot
> coordinate their activities with a candidate, so their is no bargin..  And
> spending more on something is not corruption either.  So what are you
> talking about?  Jim Bopp****
>
>  ****
>
> In a message dated 2/8/2012 11:28:25 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> DEisman at CommonCause.org writes:****
>
>  The designated hitter rule arguably has warped baseball, but not
> corrupted it, so AL managers can be excused for going along. ****
>
> The President does not have that excuse when it come to Super PACs.****
>
> ** **
>
> -----------------------------------------------****
>
> Dale Eisman****
>
> Senior researcher/writer****
>
> Common Cause -- *Holding Power Accountable*
>
> 1133 19th St NW****
>
> Washington, D.C. 20036****
>
> 202 736-5788****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [
> mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>]
> *On Behalf Of *Samuel Bagenstos
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 08, 2012 11:03 AM
> *To:* Rick Hasen
> *Cc:* law-election at UCI.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] ELB News and Commentary 2/8/12****
>
> ** **
>
> Russ Feingold (for whom I have enormous respect) apparently believes that
> any American League manager who doesn't agree with the designated hitter
> rule should have his pitcher bat in every game.****
>
> ** **
>
> Samuel Bagenstos****
>
> sbagen at gmail.com****
>
> My University of Michigan web page:
> http://web.law.umich.edu/_FacultyBioPage/facultybiopagenew.asp?ID=411****
>
> My Disability Law blog:  http://disabilitylaw.blogspot.com/****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> On Feb 8, 2012, at 10:55 AM, Rick Hasen wrote:****
>
> ** **
>  “Santorum and His Super Pac: Just Friends, Not Coordination”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=29474>
> ****
>
> Posted on February 8, 2012 7:52 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=29474>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> ABC News reports<http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/santorum-and-his-super-pac-just-friends-not-coordination/>
> .****
>
> <share_save_171_16.png><http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D29474&title=%E2%80%9CSantorum%20and%20His%20Super%20Pac%3A%20Just%20Friends%2C%20Not%20Coordination%E2%80%9D&description=>
> ****
>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> | Comments
> Off ****
>   “Analysis: Invalid signatures likely not enough to halt Walker recall”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=29471>
> ****
>
> Posted on February 8, 2012 7:50 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=29471>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> The latest
> <http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/analysis-invalid-signatures-likely-not-enough-to-halt-walker-recall-hu438e2-138895999.html>from
> Wisconsin.****
>
> <share_save_171_16.png><http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D29471&title=%E2%80%9CAnalysis%3A%20Invalid%20signatures%20likely%20not%20enough%20to%20halt%20Walker%20recall%E2%80%9D&description=>
> ****
>
> Posted in recall elections <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=11> | Comments
> Off ****
>   “Campaign finance author: Obama ‘dancing with the devil’”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=29468>
> ****
>
> Posted on February 8, 2012 7:48 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=29468>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> Russ Feingold not happy<http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/02/campaign-finance-author-obama-dancing-with-devil/1>on the Obama campaign’s super PAC decision.
> ****
>
> <share_save_171_16.png><http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D29468&title=%E2%80%9CCampaign%20finance%20author%3A%20Obama%20%E2%80%98dancing%20with%20the%20devil%E2%80%99%E2%80%9D&description=>
> ****
>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> | Comments
> Off ****
>   “Oops: Florida Republican Forgets To Remove ALEC Mission Statement From
> Boilerplate Anti-Tax Bill” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=29466> ****
>
> Posted on February 8, 2012 7:44 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=29466>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> There has been a lot of controversy lately about the role that the
> conservative American Legislative Exchange Council has played in helping to
> pass voter identification bills in states with Republican majorities.
> While this item<http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/02/02/417488/florida-gop-alec-forget/>is not about voter id., it does show ALEC’s influence in a pretty humorous
> way.****
>
> <share_save_171_16.png><http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D29466&title=%E2%80%9COops%3A%20Florida%20Republican%20Forgets%20To%20Remove%20ALEC%20Mission%20Statement%20From%20Boilerplate%20Anti-Tax%20Bill%E2%80%9D&description=>
> ****
>
> Posted in voter id <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9> | Comments Off ****
>   Floyd Abrams Responds to E.J. Dionne Column on Citizens United<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=29464>
> ****
>
> Posted on February 8, 2012 7:42 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=29464>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> Here.   I will be on a panel about *Citizens United* with Floyd Abrams,
> moderated by Ellen Katz, at the University of Michigan law school on March
> 5.  Details to come.****
>
> <share_save_171_16.png><http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D29464&title=Floyd%20Abrams%20Responds%20to%20E.J.%20Dionne%20Column%20on%20Citizens%20United&description=>
> ****
>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> | Comments
> Off ****
>   “Divided Court Rejects Proposition 8″<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=29461>
> ****
>
> Posted on February 8, 2012 7:36 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=29461>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> The *LA Times* reports<http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-prop8-20120208,0,1499193,full.story>.
> More from the SF Chronicle<http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/02/08/MN1H1N3T1H.DTL>,
> NYT<http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/us/marriage-ban-violates-constitution-court-rules.html?ref=us>
> *,*WaPo<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/calif-same-sex-marriage-ban-ruled-unconstitutional/2012/02/07/gIQAMNwkwQ_story.html>
> ,
> WSJ<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204136404577209183209519256.html?mod=WSJ_hp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsThird>,
> USA Today<http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-02-07/gay-marriage-california-proposition-8/53000180/1?loc=interstitialskip>,
> AP<http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_GAY_MARRIAGE_TRIAL?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT>,
> Huffington Post.<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/07/prop-8-ruling-same-sex-marriage-9th-circuit_n_1260316.html>
> ****
>
> <share_save_171_16.png><http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D29461&title=%E2%80%9CDivided%20Court%20Rejects%20Proposition%208%E2%80%B3&description=>
> ****
>
> Posted in Uncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1> | Comments Off
> ****
>   “Unleashed, Democrats Hunt for ‘Super PAC’ Donors”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=29458>
> ****
>
> Posted on February 8, 2012 7:28 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=29458>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> *NYT*<http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/us/politics/democrats-heed-obamas-go-ahead-on-super-pacs.html?_r=1&ref=politics>:
> “Mr. Obama’s decision also plunges his campaign and administration into
> uncharted legal and ethical terrain. Under the plan, White House officials
> will appear at events with donors — some likely to have substantial
> business interests before the administration — for a super PAC that is
> legally required to be independent of Mr. Obama’s campaign. Mr. Romney
> appeared at an event last summer for donors to Restore Our Future, and
> Democratic and Republican lawmakers have appeared at events held by super
> PACs supporting each party’s members of Congress.”****
>
> <share_save_171_16.png><http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D29458&title=%E2%80%9CUnleashed%2C%20Democrats%20Hunt%20for%20%E2%80%98Super%20PAC%E2%80%99%20Donors%E2%80%9D&description=>
> ****
>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> | Comments
> Off ****
>   “Obama campaign fears being sharply outspent by GOP super PACs”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=29456>
> ****
>
> Posted on February 8, 2012 7:27 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=29456>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> *WaPo*<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-campaign-fears-being-sharply-outspent-by-gop-super-pacs/2012/02/07/gIQAAPhexQ_story.html>:
> “‘The combination of the sheer magnitude of what we were watching on the
> Republicans’ side, combined with the lack of any real ammunition on our
> side, was disconcerting,’ said one Obama adviser, who requested anonymity
> in order to speak candidly about the decision.”****
>
> <share_save_171_16.png><http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D29456&title=%E2%80%9CObama%20campaign%20fears%20being%20sharply%20outspent%20by%20GOP%20super%20PACs%E2%80%9D&description=>
> ****
>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> | Comments
> Off ****
>   “Capitol Assets: Some legislators send millions to groups connected to
> their relatives” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=29453> ****
>
> Posted on February 8, 2012 7:24 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=29453>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> The latest installment<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/congress/capitol-assets-some-legislators-send-millions-to-groups-connected-to-their-relatives/2012/01/10/gIQAyrzdxQ_story.html>in
> *WaPo*‘s must-read series <http://www.washingtonpost.com/capitolassets>on members of Congress and self-interest.
> ****
>
> <share_save_171_16.png><http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D29453&title=%E2%80%9CCapitol%20Assets%3A%20Some%20legislators%20send%20millions%20to%20groups%20connected%20to%20their%20relatives%E2%80%9D&description=>
> ****
>
> Posted in conflict of interest laws <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=20>, ethics
> investigations <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=42>, legislation and
> legislatures <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=27>, lobbying<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=28>
> | Comments Off ****
>   “Why South Carolina’s Voter ID Suit Could Be Bound For The Supreme
> Court” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=29451> ****
>
> Posted on February 8, 2012 7:22 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=29451>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> TPM reports<http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/02/why_south_carolinas_voter_id_suit_could_be_bound_for_the_supreme_court.php>
> .****
>
> <share_save_171_16.png><http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D29451&title=%E2%80%9CWhy%20South%20Carolina%E2%80%99s%20Voter%20ID%20Suit%20Could%20Be%20Bound%20For%20The%20Supreme%20Court%E2%80%9D&description=>
> ****
>
> Posted in voter id <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>, Voting Rights Act<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
> | Comments Off ****
>   “Obama and Super PACs in the 2012 Election”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=29448>
> ****
>
> Posted on February 8, 2012 7:20 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=29448>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> Tom Mann<http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2012/0207_super_pacs_mann.aspx>:
> “My own view is that his change in posture toward the role of super PACs on
> his side of the aisle, while truly regrettable, was inevitable given the
> lack of any progress on the underlying problems.”****
>
> <share_save_171_16.png><http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D29448&title=%E2%80%9CObama%20and%20Super%20PACs%20in%20the%202012%20Election%E2%80%9D&description=>
> ****
>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> | Comments
> Off ****
>   “Four Georgia Senators Introduce Bill to Require Petition Signers to
> Show Government Photo-ID” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=29446> ****
>
> Posted on February 8, 2012 7:19 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=29446>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> Ballot Access News reports<http://www.ballot-access.org/2012/02/08/four-georgia-senators-introduce-bill-to-require-petition-signers-to-show-government-photo-id/>
> .****
>
> <share_save_171_16.png><http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D29446&title=%E2%80%9CFour%20Georgia%20Senators%20Introduce%20Bill%20to%20Require%20Petition%20Signers%20to%20Show%20Government%20Photo-ID%E2%80%9D&description=>
> ****
>
> Posted in ballot access <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=46>, voter id<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>
> | Comments Off ****
>   “Auctioning Democracy: The Rise Of Super PACS and the 2012 Election”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=29444>
> ****
>
> Posted on February 8, 2012 7:17 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=29444>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> Demos and U.S. PIRG have issued this new report<http://www.demos.org/publication/auctioning-democracy-rise-super-pacs-and-2012-election>.
> From the introduction:****
>
>  We do not yet have nearly the full picture of how Super PACs have
> affected and will continue to affect the 2012 elections. Right now, we only
> have a complete picture of the year 2011. But, we can already see some
> disturbing trends.****
>
>   Demos and U.S. PIRG analysis of Federal Election Commission data on
> Super PACs from their advent in 2010 through the end of 2011 reveals the
> following:****
>
>    - For-profit businesses use Super PACs as an avenue to influence
>    federal elections. *17% of the itemized funds raised by Super PACs
>    came from for-profit businesses—more than $30 million*.****
>
>
>    - Because Super PACs—unlike traditional PACs—may accept funds from
>    nonprofits that are not required to disclose their donors, they provide a
>    vehicle for secret funding of electoral campaigns. *6.4% of the
>    itemized funds raised by Super PACs cannot be feasibly traced back to an
>    original source*.****
>
>
>    - Super PACs are a tool used by wealthy individuals and institutions
>    to dominate the political process. *93% of the itemized funds raised
>    by Super PACs from individuals in 2011 came in contributions of at least
>    $10,000*, from just *twenty-three out of every 10 million people* in
>    the U.S. population.****
>
>   <share_save_171_16.png><http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D29444&title=%E2%80%9CAuctioning%20Democracy%3A%20The%20Rise%20Of%20Super%20PACS%20and%20the%202012%20Election%E2%80%9D&description=>
> ****
>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> | Comments
> Off ****
>   “Another Campaign For Sale” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=29441> ****
>
> Posted on February 7, 2012 8:16 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=29441>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> The *NYT *editorial board is not happy<http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/opinion/another-2012-campaign-for-sale.html?src=tp>with the Obama campaign decision on super PACs.
> ****
>
> <share_save_171_16.png><http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D29441&title=%E2%80%9CAnother%20Campaign%20For%20Sale%E2%80%9D&description=>
> ****
>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> | Comments
> Off ****
>   Will Controversial “Political Intelligence” Provision of STOCK Act Get
> Dropped in House Version of Bill? <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=29438> **
> **
>
> Posted on February 7, 2012 8:10 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=29438>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> Looks like it<https://twitter.com/#%21/jasonaabel/status/167096834043543553>so far.
> ****
>
> <share_save_171_16.png><http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D29438&title=Will%20Controversial%20%E2%80%9CPolitical%20Intelligence%E2%80%9D%20Provision%20of%20STOCK%20Act%20Get%20Dropped%20in%20House%20Version%20of%20Bill%3F&description=>
> ****
>
> Posted in legislation and legislatures<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=27>,
> lobbying <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=28> | Comments Off ****
>   “Okay. Now let’s dismantle O’Keefe’s latest horse shit…”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=29435>
> ****
>
> Posted on February 7, 2012 7:24 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=29435>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> The Brad Blog on Minnesota “voter fraud.”****
>
> <share_save_171_16.png><http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D29435&title=%E2%80%9COkay.%20Now%20let%E2%80%99s%20dismantle%20O%E2%80%99Keefe%E2%80%99s%20latest%20horse%20shit%E2%80%A6%E2%80%9D&description=>
> ****
>
> Posted in The Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60> | Comments
> Off ****
>   The Modest South Carolina Suit Against DOJ’s Blocking of Its Voter ID
> Law <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=29430> ****
>
> Posted on February 7, 2012 5:54 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=29430>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> The South Carolina complaint<http://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/2012-02-07-Complaint-Voter-ID.pdf>has now been filed challenging the Department of Justice’s denial of its
> voter id law as a violation of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.****
>
> I had expected
> <http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2011/12/the_obama_administration_s_risky_voter_id_move_threatens_the_voting_rights_act.html>South
> Carolina to make a frontal attack on the constitutionality of the Act,
> going even further than Texas had in its recent complaint (which suggests<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=28515>narrowing the Act significantly to avoid reaching the constitutional
> question).  I had thought a frontal attack was especially likely when South
> Carolina lined up big gun Paul Clement on the case.****
>
> But the complaint does not raise the issue directly or forcefully.
> Paragraph 36 raises a constitutional avoidance argument, but this is much
> less confrontational than I expected given Gov. Haley and others’ language
> against the DOJ decision.****
>
> So my money’s right now on the *Shelby County* case as the one most
> likely to bring the constitutionality of section 5 of the Voting Rights Act
> back to the Supreme Court.****
>
> <share_save_171_16.png><http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D29430&title=The%20Modest%20South%20Carolina%20Suit%20Against%20DOJ%E2%80%99s%20Blocking%20of%20Its%20Voter%20ID%20Law&description=>
> ****
>
> Posted in voter id <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>, Voting Rights Act<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
> | Comments Off ****
>   “Caucus Counting Troubles Plague Primaries”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=29428>
> ****
>
> Posted on February 7, 2012 5:48 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=29428>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> NPR reports<http://www.npr.org/2012/02/07/146541254/caucus-counting-troubles-plague-primaries>
> .****
>
> <share_save_171_16.png><http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D29428&title=%E2%80%9CCaucus%20Counting%20Troubles%20Plague%20Primaries%E2%80%9D&description=>
> ****
>
> Posted in political parties <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=25>,
> primaries <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=32> | Comments Off ****
>   “Calif. Decision Puts Marriage Politics In Spotlight”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=29426>
> ****
>
> Posted on February 7, 2012 5:47 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=29426>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> NPR reports.<http://www.npr.org/2012/02/07/146540486/calif-decision-puts-marriage-politics-in-spotlight>
> ****
>
> <share_save_171_16.png><http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D29426&title=%E2%80%9CCalif.%20Decision%20Puts%20Marriage%20Politics%20In%20Spotlight%E2%80%9D&description=>
> ****
>
> Posted in Uncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1> | Comments Off
> ****
>   “Senate-Passed “STOCK Act” Requires ‘Political Intelligence
> Consultants’ to Register and Report under Lobbying Disclosure Act”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=29423>
> ****
>
> Posted on February 7, 2012 5:45 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=29423>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> A Caplin & Drysdale update<http://www.capdale.com/senate-passed-stock-act-requires-political-intelligence-consultants-to-register-and-report-under-lobbying-disclosure-act>
> .****
>
> Political intelligence?  Oxymoron?****
>
> <share_save_171_16.png>****
>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, legislation
> and legislatures <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=27>, lobbying<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=28>
> | Comments Off ****
>   Service Members, and Not Just the Religious, Should Get Accommodations
> in Caucus Voting <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=29421> ****
>
> Posted on February 7, 2012 5:44 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=29421>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> I strongly agree with these sentiments.<http://www.servicemembers-lawcenter.org/Law_Review_1213.html>
> ****
>
> <share_save_171_16.png><http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D29421&title=Service%20Members%2C%20and%20Not%20Just%20the%20Religious%2C%20Should%20Get%20Accommodations%20in%20Caucus%20Voting&description=>
> ****
>
> Posted in voting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=31> | Comments Off ****
>   “Suspect recall signing could result in felony charges”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=29419>
> ****
>
> Posted on February 7, 2012 5:42 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=29419>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> News<http://www.journaltimes.com/article_bc9ad83c-5123-11e1-8138-001871e3ce6c.html#ixzz1lhxc9jxk>from Wisconsin.
> ****
>
> <share_save_171_16.png><http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D29419&title=%E2%80%9CSuspect%20recall%20signing%20could%20result%20in%20felony%20charges%E2%80%9D&description=>
> ****
>
> Posted in Uncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1> | Comments Off
> ****
>   “Court says woman with limited English can be kept off ballot”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=29417>
> ****
>
> Posted on February 7, 2012 5:41 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=29417>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> Reuters<http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/07/us-arizona-candidate-language-idUSTRE8162BP20120207>:
> “Arizona’s Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that a city council candidate
> with limited English language skills can be kept off the ballot in a
> largely bilingual town on the Mexico border.”****
>
> <share_save_171_16.png><http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D29417&title=%E2%80%9CCourt%20says%20woman%20with%20limited%20English%20can%20be%20kept%20off%20ballot%E2%80%9D&description=>
> ****
>
> Posted in Uncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1> | Comments Off
> ****
>   “Invitation to a Dialogue: A Better Way to Elect?”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=29415>
> ****
>
> Posted on February 7, 2012 5:39 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=29415>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> Rob Richie has written a letter<http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/opinion/invitation-to-a-dialogue-a-better-way-to-elect.html>to the
> *New York Times*, and the Times invites responses (some of which will be
> published in the *Sunday Review*).****
>
> <share_save_171_16.png><http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D29415&title=%E2%80%9CInvitation%20to%20a%20Dialogue%3A%20A%20Better%20Way%20to%20Elect%3F%E2%80%9D&description=>
> ****
>
> Posted in alternative voting systems <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=63>
> | Comments Off ****
>   “The Past is not Past; Why We Still Need Section 5 of the Voting Rights
> Act” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=29413> ****
>
> Posted on February 7, 2012 5:38 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=29413>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> Jonathan Brater writes this commentary<http://www.bostonreview.net/BR37.1/jonathan_brater_voting_rights_laws_south_carolina.php>for the
> *Boston Review*.****
>
> <share_save_171_16.png><http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D29413&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20Past%20is%20not%20Past%3B%20Why%20We%20Still%20Need%20Section%205%20of%20the%20Voting%20Rights%20Act%E2%80%9D&description=>
> ****
>
> Posted in Voting Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15> | Comments
> Off ****
>   “Obama’s Super PAC Flip-Flop” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=29411> ****
>
> Posted on February 7, 2012 5:37 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=29411>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> Adam Skaggs blogs<http://www.brennancenter.org/blog/archives/obamas_super_pac_flip-flop/>
> .****
>
> <share_save_171_16.png><http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D29411&title=%E2%80%9CObama%E2%80%99s%20Super%20PAC%20Flip-Flop%E2%80%9D&description=>
> ****
>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> | Comments
> Off ****
>   “Fighting Gay Marriage, Minnesota Group May Have Skirted Law”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=29409>
> ****
>
> Posted on February 7, 2012 5:36 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=29409>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> Buzzfeed Politics reports<http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/fighting-gay-marriage-minnesota-group-may-have-sk>,
> with the subhead: “Secret donations, through the National Organization for
> Marriage, Minnesota Family Council, and Catholic Church.”****
>
> <share_save_171_16.png><http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D29409&title=%E2%80%9CFighting%20Gay%20Marriage%2C%20Minnesota%20Group%20May%20Have%20Skirted%20Law%E2%80%9D&description=>
> ****
>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> | Comments
> Off ****
>   Kentucky Redistricting Litigation: The Latest<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=29406>
> ****
>
> Posted on February 7, 2012 5:31 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=29406>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> State legislative districts tossed<http://www.kentucky.com/2012/02/07/2059443/judge-grants-injunction-against.html>,
> and congressional redistricting heading to court.<http://www.kentucky.com/2012/02/07/2059562/no-compromise-on-congressional.html>
> ****
>
> <share_save_171_16.png><http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D29406&title=Kentucky%20Redistricting%20Litigation%3A%20The%20Latest&description=>
> ****
>
> Posted in redistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6> | Comments Off
> ****
>  “Another Bain exec revealed as man behind corporate donor to pro-Romney
> super PAC” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=29402> ****
>
> Posted on February 7, 2012 5:25 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=29402>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> Michael Beckel, now of iWatch News, reports<http://www.iwatchnews.org/2012/02/07/8104/another-bain-exec-revealed-man-behind-corporate-donor-pro-romney-super-pac>.
> It is worth remembering that those who would use a shell corporation<http://www.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeedpolitics/theres-already-a-way-to-raise-and-spend-money>to fund a Super PAC are asking for an investigation into whether they are
> breaking the laws barring conduit contributions.****
>
> <share_save_171_16.png><http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D29402&title=%E2%80%9CAnother%20Bain%20exec%20revealed%20as%20man%20behind%20corporate%20donor%20to%20pro-Romney%20super%20PAC%E2%80%9D&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****
>
> ** **
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election****
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20120208/1d3a1f96/attachment.html>

View list directory