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

[Smith, Brad]

And friends of friends. I mean, suppose some friend of McCain asked some friend of his to ask some friend of his to run IE's for John McCain: coordination? Why not?

Indeed, I think that if you favor a candidate, or oppose his opponent, you should be prohibited from any role in a group that runs IEs in that race.


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 Scott F. Bieniek [sbieniek at bienieklaw.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 5:20 PM
To: Steve Klein
Cc: JBoppjr at aol.com; law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Texas reply brief, W. Va. maps struck, and more

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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> on behalf of JBoppjr at aol.com<mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com>
> Sent: Tue 1/3/2012 4:31 PM
> To: rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>; law-election at UCI.EDU<mailto: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<mailto: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<http://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/20120103/7613095c/attachment.html>