[EL] Montana/Danielczyk

[Joe La Rue]

But our amicus did not assert that government should be able to limit
for-profit corporate general fund contributions to candidates. That may be
where the logic of the district court decision leads, but that was not the
argument Jim and I made. Rather, we asserted that *Beaumont *was not
controlling precedent because it addressed only the question of nonprofit
corporate contributions, which was not the issue in *Danielczyk*.
Therefore, we argued, the district court was free to follow the
speech-vindicating logic of *Citizens United*: Government may not
discriminate against speakers on the basis of their identity, including
their corporate identity.

Again, your link is addressing the district court's ruling. It is not
addressing the arguments that Jim and I raised.

Joe
___________________
*Joseph E. La Rue, Esq.*
cell: 513.509.6494
email: joseph.e.larue at gmail.com


CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:  This e-mail message, including any attachments, is
for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential
and privileged information or otherwise be protected by law. Any
unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you
are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail
and destroy all copies of the original message.



On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 5:19 PM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:

>  I linked to my post below explaining why it is perverse, but perhaps you
> did not click on it (or choose to respond to it):
>
>  The Perverse Holding of Danielczyk <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=18888>
> Posted on June 8, 2011 7:43 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=18888> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> In response to my query in this post <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=18851>,
> a few readers have said that the opinion means it is unconstitutional to
> limit the direct contributions of *for-profit* corporations to
> candidates, but it remains constitutional under the controlling authority
> of *Beaumont* to limit the direct contributions of *ideological,
> non-profit* corporations.
>
> Of course, as my readers point out, if this is what it means, it is a
> perverse holding: those groups which should be entitled to the *most *First
> Amendment protections (even under *Austin* and before *Citizens United, *such
> groups could spend their treasury funds independently on candidate
> campaigns) get the *least* protection.
>
>
> On 2/22/2012 2:16 PM, Joe La Rue wrote:
>
> Rick, I had the privilege of assisting Jim with the amicus he filed in
> Danielczyk. I would hardly call our argument "perverse." We simply pointed
> out the narrow nature of the holding, which has been overlooked by nearly
> everyone else. The only question presented in Beaumont was whether the
> First Amendment requires that issue advocacy corporations be exempted from
> generally-applicable bans on corporate speech. The speech ban itself was
> never at issue, as the Court recognized in its opinion. Rather, the
> question was very narrow, and so the holding was very narrow, too.
>
> Pointing that out, and explaining that Beaumont did not actually uphold
> the federal ban on corporate general-fund speech, hardly seems "perverse."
>
> Joe
> ___________________
> *Joseph E. La Rue, Esq.*
>  cell: 513.509.6494
> email: joseph.e.larue at gmail.com
>
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:  This e-mail message, including any attachments,
> is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain
> confidential and privileged information or otherwise be protected by law.
> Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If
> you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply
> e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 5:11 PM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:
>
>>  And then it should have been the same in Danielczyk, but you argued to
>> the contrary, trying to distinguish the case in a way that was perverse<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=18888>to the reasoning of the underlying
>> *Beaumont* case.
>>
>> Rick
>>
>> On 2/22/2012 2:05 PM, JBoppjr at aol.com wrote:
>>
>>  Oh, double please!
>>  Montana Supreme Court Campaign finance Decision Affront to the “Rule of
>> Law”? <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30349>
>> Posted on February 22, 2012 11:06 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30349>
>> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>
>> That’s Allen Dickerson’s claim <http://bit.ly/yKlU2z>.  Oh please.  The
>> Montana Supreme Court took Justice Kennedy at his word
>> <http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2012/01/montana_supreme_court_citizens_united_can_montana_get_away_with_defying_the_supreme_court_.html>and
>> looked at the state’s evidence of corruption to justify its law.  That
>> might be wrong—but it is not defying the rule of law.
>>
>> Even Justice Ginsburg and Breyer voted to stay the Montana Supreme Court
>> decision "Because lower courts are bound to follow this Court’s decisions
>> until they are withdrawn or modified," So the Montana Supreme Court was
>> bound to strike the statute under *CU* and they refused.  This is an
>> affront to the rule of law.  Jim Bopp
>>   In a message dated 2/22/2012 4:33:27 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
>> rhasen at law.uci.edu writes:
>>
>>  “Michigan Democratic Party encourages crossover voting in GOP
>> presidential primary” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30361>
>> Posted on February 22, 2012 1:31 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30361>
>> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>
>> The Fix<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/michigan-democratic-party-encourages-crossover-voting-in-gop-presidential-primary/2012/02/22/gIQA1qjoTR_blog.html>:
>> “Operation Chaos in Michigan? Again? The Michigan Democratic Party sent an
>> e-mail to supporters Wednesday encouraging them to take part in the state’s
>> Republican presidential primary on Tuesday.”
>>  [image:
>> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30361&title=“Michigan
>> Democratic Party encourages crossover voting in GOP presidential primaryâ€
>> &description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D30361&title=%E2%80%9CMichigan%20Democratic%20Party%20encourages%20crossover%20voting%20in%20GOP%20presidential%20primary%E2%80%9D&description=>
>>  Posted in chicanery <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>, political
>> parties <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=25>, primaries<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=32>
>> | Comments Off
>>  “Federal Appeals Court Rules That N.M. Violated Federal Law, Failing to
>> Provide Voter Registration Applications to Public Assistance Clients”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30358>
>> Posted on February 22, 2012 1:28 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30358>
>> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>
>> See this press release<http://projectvote.org/newsreleases/798-federal-appeals-court-rules-that-nm-violated-federal-law-failing-to-provide-voter-registration-applications-to-public-assistance-clients.html>about this
>> new opinion. <http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/11/11-2063.pdf>
>> From the release:, “The federal Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled
>> yesterday that the State of New Mexico Human Services Department (HSD)
>> violated Section 7 of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) by
>> improperly withholding voter registration applications from certain public
>> assistance clients. The decision came in a federal lawsuit brought against
>> state officials by a coalition voting rights groups and attorneys,
>> including the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Project Vote,
>> and Dēmos; the Albuquerque law firm of Freedman Boyd Hollander Goldberg
>> Ives & Duncan, and the law firm of DLA Piper, on behalf of Albuquerque
>> resident Shawna Allers. This major development concerned the HSD policy of
>> providing a voter registration application to a public assistance client
>> only if the client specifically requests an application. Section 7 requires
>> New Mexico and most other states to offer voter registration to public
>> assistance clients when they apply for benefits, periodically recertify
>> their benefits eligibility, or submit a change of address for receipt of
>> benefits. Along with HSD officials, the New Mexico Secretary of State
>> shares responsibility for ensuring that State agencies comply with the
>> NVRA.”
>>  [image:
>> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30358&title=“Federal
>> Appeals Court Rules That N.M. Violated Federal Law, Failing to Provide
>> Voter Registration Applications to Public Assistance Clientsâ€
>> &description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D30358&title=%E2%80%9CFederal%20Appeals%20Court%20Rules%20That%20N.M.%20Violated%20Federal%20Law%2C%20Failing%20to%20Provide%20Voter%20Registration%20Applications%20to%20Public%20Assistance%20Clients%E2%80%9D&description=>
>>  Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, NVRA
>> (motor voter) <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=33>, voter registration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=37>
>> | Comments Off
>>  “88% of Obama’s Itemized Donors in January Were Repeaters; 40% of
>> Romney’s Donors Have Maxed Out; Santorum, Gingrich, Paul, and Obama Strong
>> with Small Donors” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30355>
>> Posted on February 22, 2012 1:19 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30355>
>> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>
>> Must-read<http://cfinst.org/Press/PReleases/12-02-22/88_of_Obama%E2%80%99s_Itemized_Donors_in_January_Were_Repeaters_40_of_Romney%E2%80%99s_Donors_Have_Maxed_Out.aspx>CFI press release.
>>  [image:
>> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30355&title=“88%
>> of Obama’s Itemized Donors in January Were Repeaters; 40% of Romney’s
>> Donors Have Maxed Out; Santorum, Gingrich, Paul, and Obama Strong with
>> Small Donors†&description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D30355&title=%E2%80%9C88%25%20of%20Obama%E2%80%99s%20Itemized%20Donors%20in%20January%20Were%20Repeaters%3B%2040%25%20of%20Romney%E2%80%99s%20Donors%20Have%20Maxed%20Out%3B%20Santorum%2C%20Gingrich%2C%20Paul%2C%20and%20Obama%20Strong%20with%20Small%20Donors%E2%80%9D&description=>
>>  Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> | Comments
>> Off
>>  “Does Money Corrupt the Political Process?”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30352>
>> Posted on February 22, 2012 11:36 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30352>
>> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>
>> Kevin Drum blogs<http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/02/does-money-corrupt-political-process>
>> .
>>  [image:
>> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30352&title=“Does
>> Money Corrupt the Political Process?†&description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D30352&title=%E2%80%9CDoes%20Money%20Corrupt%20the%20Political%20Process%3F%E2%80%9D&description=>
>>  Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> | Comments
>> Off
>>  Montana Supreme Court Campaign finance Decision Affront to the “Rule of
>> Law”? <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30349>
>> Posted on February 22, 2012 11:06 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30349>
>> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>
>> That’s Allen Dickerson’s claim <http://bit.ly/yKlU2z>.  Oh please.  The
>> Montana Supreme Court took Justice Kennedy at his word
>> <http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2012/01/montana_supreme_court_citizens_united_can_montana_get_away_with_defying_the_supreme_court_.html>and
>> looked at the state’s evidence of corruption to justify its law.  That
>> might be wrong—but it is not defying the rule of law.
>>
>> Want to talk about defying the rule of law?  Look at the district court
>> decision <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=18848> in the *Danielczyk* case
>> (now on appeal to the 4th Circuit), defying Supreme Court precedent on the
>> constitutionality of limits on corporate contributions to candidates.  (
>> Here <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26906>‘s the 2d Circuit on that
>> opinion: The Court is aware of United States v. Danielczyk, No. 1:11cr85
>> (JCC), 2011 WL 2161794 (E.D. Va. May 26, 2011), which struck down a ban on
>> corporate contributions, based on what it called an ‘inescapable’ expansion
>> of Citizen United’s logic. Id. at *18; Danielczyk, 2011 WL 2268063 (E.D.
>> Va. June 7, 2011) (denying reconsideration)*. The role of an appellate
>> court is to apply to law as it exists. Since the Supreme Court reaffirmed
>> the validity of the 100-year old corporate ban just 8 years ago, Beaumont,
>> 539 U.S. at 154-55, and declined to overrule this holding in Citizens
>> United, this Court will not do so here*. Indeed, Citizens United
>> confirms that the anti-corruption interest is a legitimate justification
>> for campaign contribution restrictions. Citizens United also does not
>> disturb the validity of the anti-circumvention interest. See Thalheimer v.
>> City of San Diego, Nos. 10-55322, 10-55324, 10-55434, 2011 WL 2400779, at
>> *13 (9th Cir. Jun. 9, 2011) (concluding that ‘nothing in the explicit
>> holdings or broad reasoning’ of Citizens United invalidates the
>> anti-circumvention interest in the context of contribution limits)”)
>>
>> In the end, it will be up to the Supreme Court to weigh in in both the
>> Montana case and the question in *Danielczyk*.
>>
>> [Disclosure: I am an attorney for the City of San Diego in the *Thalheimer
>> *case, where the corporate contribution issue is presented.]
>>  [image:
>> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30349&title=Montana
>> Supreme Court Campaign finance Decision Affront to the “Rule of Lawâ€
>> ?&description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D30349&title=Montana%20Supreme%20Court%20Campaign%20finance%20Decision%20Affront%20to%20the%20%E2%80%9CRule%20of%20Law%E2%80%9D%3F&description=>
>>  Posted in Uncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1> | Comments
>> Off
>>  “Election law changes are ‘in really uncharted territory’”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30344>
>> Posted on February 22, 2012 7:58 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30344>
>> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>
>> The latest <http://www.the-daily-record.com/news/article/5159744> from
>> the voting wars in Ohio.  MORE<http://www.alternet.org/story/154190/backfired%21_4_ways_the_ohio_gop_tilts_voting_rules_but_ends_up_helping_democrats/>from Jennifer Brunner at AlterNet.
>>
>>
>>  [image:
>> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30344&title=“Election
>> law changes are ‘in really uncharted territory’†&description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D30344&title=%E2%80%9CElection%20law%20changes%20are%20%E2%80%98in%20really%20uncharted%20territory%E2%80%99%E2%80%9D&description=>
>>  Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The
>> Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60> | Comments Off
>>  Murphy and von Spakovsky Debate Voter ID at National Press Club<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30341>
>> Posted on February 22, 2012 7:39 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30341>
>> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>
>> Laura Murphy of the ACLU debates<http://www.press.org/events/status-and-impact-new-state-voter-id-laws>Hans von Spakovsky of the Heritage Foundation at the National Press Club
>> tomorrow.  [No webcast.]
>>
>> I tell some amusing stories about Hans von Spakovsky’s research and
>> scholarship in this area in the “Fraudulent Fraud Squad” sneak preview<http://www.amazon.com/Fraudulent-Fraud-Squad-Understanding-ebook/dp/B00795X5XI/ref=zg_bs_157417011_9>chapter of my forthcoming book,
>> *The Voting Wars*<http://www.amazon.com/Voting-Wars-Florida-Election-Meltdown/dp/0300182031/ref=sr_1_cc_2?s=aps&ie=UTF8&qid=1329286945&sr=1-2-catcorr>.
>> You can also take a trip down memory lane with other members of the squad,
>> including Thor Hearne, John Fund, Matthew Vadum, Dick Armey, Michelle
>> Malkin, and Bradley Schlozman.
>>  [image:
>> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30341&title=Murphy
>> and von Spakovsky Debate Voter ID at National Press Club&description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D30341&title=Murphy%20and%20von%20Spakovsky%20Debate%20Voter%20ID%20at%20National%20Press%20Club&description=>
>>  Posted in chicanery <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>, election
>> administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, fraudulent fraud
>> squad <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=8>, The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>,
>> voter id <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9> | Comments Off
>>  “The Supreme Court and Citizens United II”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30339>
>> Posted on February 22, 2012 7:35 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30339>
>> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>
>> An NYT editorial.<http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/22/opinion/the-supreme-court-and-citizens-united-take-2.html?_r=1>
>> My Slate piece<http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2012/02/justice_ruth_bader_ginsburg_is_ready_to_speak_out_on_the_danger_of_super_pacs_.html?fb_ref=sm_fb_plugin_activity>
>> (which now has 1,000 “likes” on Facebook [I don't think that's happened
>> before])  expresses similar sentiments about the Montana case.
>>  [image:
>> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30339&title=“The
>> Supreme Court and Citizens United II†&description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D30339&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20Supreme%20Court%20and%20Citizens%20United%20II%E2%80%9D&description=>
>>  Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> | Comments
>> Off
>>  “Only sensible campaign reform: Real-time reporting”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30337>
>> Posted on February 22, 2012 7:29 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30337>
>> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>
>> Jon Ralson has written this column<http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2012/feb/22/only-sensible-campaign-reform-real-time-reporting/?hpp>.
>> If only those people <http://mcconnell.senate.gov/public/>who used to say<http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2010/08/03/111030/mcconnell-disclose/>they supported full, instant disclosure and no limits would not have
>> abandoned their position after *Citizens United*, we might be able to
>> fix the disclosure problem.
>>  [image:
>> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30337&title=“Only
>> sensible campaign reform: Real-time reporting†&description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D30337&title=%E2%80%9COnly%20sensible%20campaign%20reform%3A%20Real-time%20reporting%E2%80%9D&description=>
>>  Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> | Comments
>> Off
>>  “Super PAC Money Getting More Scrutiny, Complaints”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30334>
>> Posted on February 22, 2012 7:25 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30334>
>> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>
>> Eliza Newlin Carney reports<http://www.rollcall.com/news/super_pac_money_getting_more_scrutiny_complaints_rick_santorum-212571-1.html?pos=htmbtxt>for
>> *Roll Call*.
>>  [image:
>> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30334&title=“Super
>> PAC Money Getting More Scrutiny, Complaints†&description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D30334&title=%E2%80%9CSuper%20PAC%20Money%20Getting%20More%20Scrutiny%2C%20Complaints%E2%80%9D&description=>
>>  Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> | Comments
>> Off
>>  “Postal cutbacks and the voting process”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30332>
>> Posted on February 22, 2012 7:24 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30332>
>> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>
>> The *SF Chronicle *reports<http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/02/18/INLN1MNT7G.DTL>
>> .
>>  [image:
>> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30332&title=“Postal
>> cutbacks and the voting process†&description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D30332&title=%E2%80%9CPostal%20cutbacks%20and%20the%20voting%20process%E2%80%9D&description=>
>>  Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18> | Comments
>> Off
>>  “Secretary of State Mark Ritchie offers Voter ID alternative:
>> electronic poll books” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30330>
>> Posted on February 22, 2012 7:23 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30330>
>> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>
>> MinnPost reports.<http://www.minnpost.com/political-agenda/2012/02/secretary-state-mark-ritchie-offers-voter-id-alternative-electronic-poll-bo>
>>  [image:
>> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30330&title=“Secretary
>> of State Mark Ritchie offers Voter ID alternative: electronic poll booksâ€
>> &description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D30330&title=%E2%80%9CSecretary%20of%20State%20Mark%20Ritchie%20offers%20Voter%20ID%20alternative%3A%20electronic%20poll%20books%E2%80%9D&description=>
>>  Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, voter
>> id <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9> | Comments Off
>>  “Justice Kennedy Unlikely to Budge on ‘Citizens United’”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30328>
>> Posted on February 22, 2012 7:22 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30328>
>> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>
>> Matt Taylor reports<http://nationalmemo.com/article/justice-kennedy-unlikely-budge-citizens-united>for the National Memo.
>>  [image:
>> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30328&title=“Justice
>> Kennedy Unlikely to Budge on ‘Citizens United’†&description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D30328&title=%E2%80%9CJustice%20Kennedy%20Unlikely%20to%20Budge%20on%20%E2%80%98Citizens%20United%E2%80%99%E2%80%9D&description=>
>>  Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> | Comments
>> Off
>>  “The Electoral College Explained” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30325>
>> Posted on February 22, 2012 7:20 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30325>
>> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>
>> ABC News reports<http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/electoral-college-is-explained-by-author-kenneth-c-davis-15482102>
>> .
>>  [image:
>> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30325&title=“The
>> Electoral College Explained†&description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D30325&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20Electoral%20College%20Explained%E2%80%9D&description=>
>>  Posted in electoral college <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=44> | Comments
>> Off
>>  “Juvenile judge race goes back to court”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30323>
>> Posted on February 22, 2012 7:19 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30323>
>> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>
>> The *Hunter* case <http://electionlawblog.org/?s=hunter>, a significant *Bush
>> v. Gore* sequel, heads back<http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/201202211849/NEWS0106/302210150>to the Sixth Circuit, thanks to a partisan tie broken by Ohio SOS Jon
>> Husted.
>>  [image:
>> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30323&title=“Juvenile
>> judge race goes back to court†&description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D30323&title=%E2%80%9CJuvenile%20judge%20race%20goes%20back%20to%20court%E2%80%9D&description=>
>>  Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18> | Comments
>> Off
>>  “Campaign Finance in the 2012 Elections: The Rise of Super PACs”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30320>
>> Posted on February 22, 2012 7:16 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30320>
>> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>
>> Brookings is holding this event<http://www.brookings.edu/events/2012/0301_super_pacs.aspx>March 1 with Tom Mann, Tony Corrado, and Trevor Potter.  It will be webcast
>> as well.
>>  [image:
>> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30320&title=“Campaign
>> Finance in the 2012 Elections: The Rise of Super PACs†&description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D30320&title=%E2%80%9CCampaign%20Finance%20in%20the%202012%20Elections%3A%20The%20Rise%20of%20Super%20PACs%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
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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
>>
>
>
> --
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120222/699b2b8e/attachment.html>