[EL] Texas reply brief, W. Va. maps struck, and more

[Scott F. Bieniek]

Am I the only one hoping the FEC puts out an NPR on the coordination regs
just to see Trevor's definition of "best friend?" And I sure do hope he
includes Facebook "friends" and "likes"--he and Colbert could have tons of
fun with that one.

Scott Bieniek
General Counsel
Friends of Herman Cain, Inc.

On Tuesday, January 3, 2012, Steve Klein <stephen.klein.esq at gmail.com>
wrote:
>> The solution to the "problem" therefore, would seem to be to require
SuperPacs and other "outside groups" to be "totally independent" of
candidates and parties (as the Supreme Court defined independent
expenditures in Buckley)--rather than run by their best friends and current
or former fundraisers.
>
>
> I can see a definition like "best friends" going a long way under this
paradigm. Given how far some FEC definitions go, all I can say is "Rest in
peace, Will Rogers."
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Trevor Potter <tpotter at capdale.com> wrote:
>
>
> Unless the contribution limits are "raised" by removing them entirely (as
Jim no doubt favors) there will always be the potential for wealthy donors
to circumvent contribution limits by giving the maximum allowed to the
candidate, and any additional desired money to the "candidate SuperPac"
which under the new state of affairs can accept unlimited amounts.
> The solution to the "problem" therefore, would seem to be to require
SuperPacs and other "outside groups" to be "totally independent" of
candidates and parties (as the Supreme Court defined independent
expenditures in Buckley)--rather than run by their best friends and current
or former fundraisers. Further, we should ensure that all funds used for
these independent expenditures are fully disclosed as to their true
source , as the Court held in Citizens United the law could require them to
be.
> Trevor Potter
>
> ________________________________
> From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu on behalf of
JBoppjr at aol.com
> Sent: Tue 1/3/2012 4:31 PM
> To: rhasen at law.uci.edu; law-election at UCI.EDU
> Subject: Re: [EL] Texas reply brief, W. Va. maps struck, and more
>
>
>
> My suggestion is to simply fix the cause of this "problem," raise
contribution limits. Jim Bopp
>
> “Welcome to the Super PAC Nation”
>
> Posted on January 3, 2012 12:06 pm by Rick Hasen
>
> Greg Sargent:
>
> So in sum: We are going to see hundreds and hundreds of millions of
dollars worth of ads bombarding millions of voters for months on end, with
no knowledge of who is paying for them, no accountability at all for the
candidates who are directly benefiting from them, and no meaningful effort
to rebut the countless lies, distortions and sleazy attacks they’ll be
leveling on a daily basis — ones that will directly impact who controls
Congress and the White House next year.
>
> Welcome to Super PAC Nation
>
>
> In a message dated 1/3/2012 4:14:17 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
rhasen at law.uci.edu writes:
>
> “Much Commentary on Virginia Ballot Access Shows Utter Ignorance of
History of Ballot Access Litigation”
>
> Posted on January 3, 2012 1:12 pm by Rick Hasen
>
> Richard Winger
>
> 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/20120103/01ead137/attachment.html>