[EL] Texas reply brief, W. Va. maps struck, and more
JBoppjr at aol.com
JBoppjr at aol.com
Wed Jan 4 12:22:20 PST 2012
Interesting questions so let me try.
Can you explain how raising contribution limits solves this issue?
People want to support the candidate of their choice and are willing to
spend a certain amount of money to do that. So if they cannot give "all they
are willing to spend" to the candidate, then they will look to other
vehicles to give their money to that will help get their candidates elected.
Contribution limits to candidate, therefore, spawn other vehicles for the
spending.
Thus, raising contribution limits substantially will dry up much of the
funds now available to Super PACs.
This is true both logically and emphatically. Logically, money given to a
candidates to spend will be spent most effectively and efficiently.
Certainly money spent independently can be spent effectively but it is hit and
miss. Romney's Super PAC spending in Iowa may be an example of effective
spending and there are some groups that just want to get their own message out
independent of the candidate But coordinated spending is almost always
more efficient and effective and the ultimate example of that is the
candidate simply doing it herself.
Just look at Indiana. We have no individual contribution limits and only
a few independent spenders. We have no Super PACs, even though the
restrictions on corporate and union contributions might result in some. There will
always be some groups who want to get their own messages out, or contact
their own supporters with partisan messages, but the demand for independent
spending driven by contribution limits does not exist in Indiana so we have
much less of it.
To curb this "problem," raising contribution limits must be accompanied by
a ban or further regulation of Super PACs, which is something I don't think
you'd approve of.
I don't really have to worry about this since such a ban or limits on
contributions to Super PACs is unconstitutional.
I am quite shocked that you would even say that this is a "problem" (with
scare quotes noted) that can be fixed.
You should not be shocked that I view this as a "problem." The problem is
not independent spending per se, but the artificial increase in
independent spending caused by contribution limits. This is a distortion that I see
as a problem. But further, I positively support spending through candidates
and political parties because I view them as the most accountable.
Forcing spending through less accountable spenders is a "problem." Jim
In a message dated 1/3/2012 5:19:24 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
mmcdon at gmu.edu writes:
Jim,
Can you explain how raising contribution limits solves this issue? The
Romney campaign has sufficient resources to run their own television ads,
which have been overwhelmingly positive. As a strategic decision, the Romney
campaign is allowing Restore Our Future, Inc. to run the negative ads. And
with anonymous donors and the prohibition on coordinating as a shield,
Restore Our Future, Inc. cannot be tied directly to Romney’s campaign. Any smart
campaign in the future, knowing that their former veteran campaign staff
are at the helm of an affiliated Super PAC, will use this campaign model
regardless if campaign contribution limits are raised. When we get to the
general election, it would be foolish to believe that the Obama campaign will
not follow this model. To curb this "problem," raising contribution limits
must be accompanied by a ban or further regulation of Super PACs, which is
something I don't think you'd approve of.
I am quite shocked that you would even say that this is a "problem" (with
scare quotes noted) that can be fixed. We've been hearing for months on the
list serve from those that defend the new campaign finance regime that
only the message is important and that the public does not need to know the
source of the message. If that is the case, there is no "problem" whatsoever
that needs to be fixed. The only sad part for Gingrich is that he did not
have the resources and wealthy friends to set up a Super PAC to attack
Romney with the same vigor.
-Mike
============
Dr. Michael P. McDonald
Associate Professor, George Mason University
Non-Resident Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution
Mailing address:
(o) 703-993-4191 George Mason University
(f) 703-993-1399 Dept. of Public and International Affairs
mmcdon at gmu.edu 4400 University Drive - 3F4
http://elections.gmu.edu Fairfax, VA 22030-4444
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
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 4:32 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 comments.
Posted in ballot access | Comments Off
“Three-judge federal panel says W.Va. Congressional redistricting is not
constitutional.”
Posted on January 3, 2012 1:11 pm by Rick Hasen
See this opinion (via the Charleston Daily Mail).
Posted in redistricting | Comments Off
Texas on Defensive in SCOTUS Redistricting Reply Brief
Posted on January 3, 2012 1:08 pm by Rick Hasen
You can read the brief here (Texas Redistricting is posting all the reply
briefs as they come in). I was struck in reading the Texas brief how much
less persuasive it seemed than the earlier filings (the stay requests and
opening brief), which I thought were quite strong. Texas made a strategic
decision to try to blow off the significance of the D.C. court opinion
explaining the denial of summary judgment, and that seemed to me to be a mistake.
The problem is that the opening brief put a lot of weight on the the
question whether Texas was likely to succeed on the merits in the underlyling
preclearance dispute before the D.C. court, and the DC opinion which came
later really seemed to undermine that argument.
Also noteworthy in this brief is that Texas alludes the the potential
unconstitutionality of section 5, an issue not squarely presented in the case: “
If any argument in this case is ‘extreme,’ NAACP Br. 24, or ‘absurd,’
Rodriguez Br. 28, it is Appellees’ argument (fully endorsed by the Texas
court) that a district court has carte blanche to rewrite a duly enacted state
law—and order elections to be conducted under that judicially drawn map—
solely because the preclearance process is taking too long, without any
finding that those alterations are necessary to remedy a likely violation of law
and narrowly tailored to do so. If that is really what Section 5 requires,
then the doubts about its constitutionality are even graver than this
Court feared in Northwest Austin.”
Finally, in talking about who was responsible for the delay in the
preclearance process, Texas describes the state of the current administrative
preclearance request of its voter identification law: “Texas’ decision to seek
administrative preclearance of its recently enacted voter identification
law further illustrates this point. Texas sought administrative preclearance
from DOJ on July 25, 2011, less than a week after filing its judicial
preclearance action for its redistricting maps. On September 23, 2011, at the
very end of the 60-day review period, DOJ requested additional information.
Nearly two months after that, on November 16, 2011, DOJ asserted that the
State’s submission was insufficient. Over 160 days have now elapsed since
Texas submitted its Voter ID law for preclearance, and DOJ still has not made
a final decision about whether it will interpose objections.”
Posted in Department of Justice, redistricting, Supreme Court, Voting
Rights Act | Comments Off
“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.
Posted in campaign finance | Comments Off
“Wisconsin: No Roger, No Rerun, No Recall? Barrett and the unusual nature
of the recall Rematch/Rerun”
Posted on January 3, 2012 12:02 pm by Rick Hasen
This item appears on the Recall Elections Blog.
Posted in recall elections | Comments Off
“Like 6 Double Barrel Blast From Big Sky Country: Montana Rejects Citizens
United “
Posted on January 3, 2012 11:24 am by Rick Hasen
Ciara Torres-Spelliscy blogs.
Posted in campaign finance | Comments Off
“Iowa’s Other Peculiar Institution”
Posted on January 3, 2012 9:38 am by Rick Hasen
David Schoenbaum on Iowa redistricting at the NYT “Campaign Stops” blog.
Posted in redistricting | Comments Off
“Is Privacy Act Violated as Voting War’s GOP Hit Man is Fed Leaks By
Justice Department Mole?”
Posted on January 3, 2012 9:03 am by Rick Hasen
AlterNet: “A crusading GOP critic of the Obama Justice Department’s
Voting Section, Hans von Spakovsky, has admitted to having Department sources
that are leaking apparently confidential and highly personal information that
he is using to viciously attack Voting Section staff and to smear the
Department at large.”
Posted in chicanery, Department of Justice | Comments Off
Mitt Romney Almost Certainly is Not a Liar About His Super PACs
Posted on January 3, 2012 8:56 am by Rick Hasen
Newt Gingrich accused Mitt Romney of lying about whether he is
coordinating with pro-Romney Super PACs. These PACs have been pummeling Gingrich with
negative ads in Iowa, which many believe has let to Gingrich’s big fall in
the Iowa polls.
Here is the relevant exchange between Gingrich and CBS’s Norah O’Donnell:
Norah O’Donnell: “You scolded Mitt Romney, his friends who are running
this Super PAC that has funded that, and you said of Mitt Romney, ‘Someone
who will lie to you to get to be president will lie to you when they are
president. I have to ask you, are you calling Mitt Romney a liar?”
Gingrich: “Yes.”
O’Donnell: “You’re calling Mitt Romney a liar?”
Gingrich: “Well, you seem shocked by it! This is a man whose staff created
the PAC, his millionaire friends fund the PAC, he pretends he has nothing
to do with the PAC — it’s baloney. He’s not telling the American people
the truth.”
I have no inside information on any communications between Mr. Romney and
supportive super PACs. But Mr. Romney seems like a very intelligent and
cautious person. If he had any communications with the Super PACs, he could
be in very serious legal trouble—not to mention that the political fallout
from a potential criminal violation of campaign finance laws would be
enormous.
And there is absolutely no upside to illegal coordinating. As Mr.
Gingrich himself explains, the people running the pro-Romney Super PAC know Mitt
Romney well, understand his campaign strategy, and have deep pockets. They
can simply follow Romney’s lead—and be much more negative than Romney,
leaving the candidate unsullied and his opponents beaten up—without risking
any legal liability.
It is irresponsible for Mr. Gingrich to accuse Mr. Romney of lying without
a shred of evidence. The crime here is not that Romney is coordinating.
It is the system of superPACs which threatens the integrity of our
legislative and electoral process.
UPDATE: To be clear, Mr. Gingrich seems to be accusing Mr. Romney of
illegal coordination. Romney is allowed to have some contact with donors to
the super PAC, etc., without violating the FEC rules (such as they are) on
what counts as coordination.
--
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120104/ecd19504/attachment.html>
View list directory