[EL] ELB News and Commentary 1/19/12
Steve Hoersting
hoersting at gmail.com
Thu Jan 19 06:11:58 PST 2012
Jim is right. The *NCRL v. Leake* case was first to eliminate contribution
limits for independent expenditures, and in federal court. But as-applied
to a state law.
The *SpeechNow.org* case challenged the FEC's political committee status
requirements for wholly independent groups -- *both* the federal
contribution limits and the federal PAC reporting requirements, aiming to
leave only the event-driven disclosure provisions for non-political
committees at 2 USC 434(c).
*SpeechNow.org* was half successful. The federal contribution limits are
gone, thank goodness. But the full panoply of PAC reporting requirements
remain.
This is why "Super PACs" are called Super *PACs* and not Super Groups.
Steve Hoersting
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 8:53 AM, <JBoppjr at aol.com> wrote:
> **
> Actually, Rick is only partially correct on this:
>
> "After and following *Citizens United*, the courts (most importantly in *
> Speechnow*) and the FEC provided a blessing for independent only
> expenditure committees (Super PACs) to collect unlimited sums from
> individuals, labor unions, and corporations."
>
> The first federal court of appeals to legalize Super FACs was the Fourth
> Circuit in 2008, years before *Citizens United*. The case, *North
> Carolina Right to Life v. Leake*, was a challenge to North Carolina's
> $4,000 individual contribution limit to IE-only PACs. The limit was struck
> down by the 4th Circuit under *Buckley* and *MCFL. Citizens United*reaffirmed the central rationale of
> *Buckley*, *MCFL* and *Leake* that IEs do not corrupt and* *did add to
> the mix unlimited corporate and labor union contributions to Super PACs.
> Even without *CU*, Super PACs would have emerged, but with only unlimited
> individual contributions. Jim Bopp
>
> In a message dated 1/19/2012 12:13:53 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> rhasen at law.uci.edu writes:
>
> Super PACS May Be the Story of the Day….<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=28243>
> Posted on January 18, 2012 8:57 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=28243>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> but absolutely don’t miss this interactive explainer<http://motherjones.com/politics/2012/01/interactive-explainer-republican-governors-association-money-machine>from Mother Jones about how the Republican Governors Association has
> effectively moved around money in state races, shielding many (often
> corporate) contributors from effective disclosure.
> [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=28243&title=Super
> PACS May Be the Story of the Day….&description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D28243&title=Super%20PACS%20May%20Be%20the%20Story%20of%20the%20Day%E2%80%A6.&description=>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> | Comments
> Off
> “The Influence Industry: Activist groups want to undo ruling that led to
> ‘super PAC’ frenzy” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=28240>
> Posted on January 18, 2012 7:47 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=28240>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Dan Eggen reports<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-influence-industry-activist-groups-want-to-undo-ruling-that-led-to-super-pac-frenzy/2012/01/18/gIQADUCR9P_story.html>for
> *WaPo*.
> [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=28240&title=“The
> Influence Industry: Activist groups want to undo ruling that led to
> ‘super PAC’ frenzy†&description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D28240&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20Influence%20Industry%3A%20Activist%20groups%20want%20to%20undo%20ruling%20that%20led%20to%20%E2%80%98super%20PAC%E2%80%99%20frenzy%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> | Comments
> Off
> New CRS Report <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=28238>
> Posted on January 18, 2012 7:46 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=28238>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Contemporary developments in presidential elections (Jan. 9)<http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42139.pdf>
> [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=28238&title=New
> CRS Report&description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D28238&title=New%20CRS%20Report&description=>
> Posted in Uncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1> | Comments Off
> “‘Super PACs’ dominate the political landscape”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=28235>
> Posted on January 18, 2012 7:44 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=28235>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> *LAT *reports<http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-super-pacs-20120119,0,1538469.story>
> .
> [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=28235&title=“‘Super
> PACs’ dominate the political landscape†&description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D28235&title=%E2%80%9C%E2%80%98Super%20PACs%E2%80%99%20dominate%20the%20political%20landscape%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> | Comments
> Off
> “The Sudden Emergence of Super PACs”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=28232>
> Posted on January 18, 2012 4:47 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=28232>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> To the Point’s Reporter’s Notebook talks to<http://www.kcrw.com/news/programs/tp/tp120117the_south_carolina_r/>Chris Frates, David Keating and Paul Ryan.
> [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=28232&title=“The
> Sudden Emergence of Super PACs†&description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D28232&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20Sudden%20Emergence%20of%20Super%20PACs%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in Uncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1> | Comments Off
> “Will Jon Stewart go to jail for running Stephen Colbert’s super PAC?”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=28229>
> Posted on January 18, 2012 4:42 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=28229>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> The *Christian Science Monitor* reports<http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/Vox-News/2012/0118/Will-Jon-Stewart-go-to-jail-for-running-Stephen-Colbert-s-super-PAC>
> .
> [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=28229&title=“Will
> Jon Stewart go to jail for running Stephen Colbert’s super PAC?â€
> &description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D28229&title=%E2%80%9CWill%20Jon%20Stewart%20go%20to%20jail%20for%20running%20Stephen%20Colbert%E2%80%99s%20super%20PAC%3F%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> | Comments
> Off
> “California could be model for ‘super PAC’ disclosure”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=28227>
> Posted on January 18, 2012 4:39 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=28227>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> The *San Jose Mercury News* reports<http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_19768783>
> .
> [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=28227&title=“California
> could be model for ‘super PAC’ disclosure†&description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D28227&title=%E2%80%9CCalifornia%20could%20be%20model%20for%20%E2%80%98super%20PAC%E2%80%99%20disclosure%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> | Comments
> Off
> “Rules of the Game: Some Say Nixing Contribution Limits Will Level
> Playing Field” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=28225>
> Posted on January 18, 2012 4:38 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=28225>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Eliza’s latest.<http://www.rollcall.com/issues/57_81/Some-Say-Nixing-Contribution-Limits-Will-Level-Playing-Field-211595-1.html?pos=olobh>
> [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=28225&title=“Rules
> of the Game: Some Say Nixing Contribution Limits Will Level Playing Fieldâ€
> &description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D28225&title=%E2%80%9CRules%20of%20the%20Game%3A%20Some%20Say%20Nixing%20Contribution%20Limits%20Will%20Level%20Playing%20Field%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> | Comments
> Off
> Arlington VA Sends Out Ballots <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=28222>
> Posted on January 18, 2012 2:37 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=28222>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> See here<https://twitter.com/#%21/ArlingtonVotes/status/159752215525998592>.
> Has Perry announced he won’t go to SCOTUS on VA ballot access?
> [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=28222&title=Arlington
> VA Sends Out Ballots&description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D28222&title=Arlington%20VA%20Sends%20Out%20Ballots&description=>
> Posted in ballot access <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=46> | Comments
> Off
> “Citizens United vs FEC: The End of Democracy As We Know It?”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=28219>
> Posted on January 18, 2012 2:22 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=28219>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Weissman, Bopp debate<http://www.lsba.org/midyear2012/LSBAClassActionCitizensUnitedCLE.pdf>
> .
> [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=28219&title=“Citizens
> United vs FEC: The End of Democracy As We Know It?†&description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D28219&title=%E2%80%9CCitizens%20United%20vs%20FEC%3A%20The%20End%20of%20Democracy%20As%20We%20Know%20It%3F%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> | Comments
> Off
> “New S.C. Poll: Colbert Hot, Court-Bashing Not”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=28216>
> Posted on January 18, 2012 1:38 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=28216>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Justice at Stake has issued this press release<http://www.justiceatstake.org/newsroom/press_releases.cfm/new_sc_poll_colbert_hot_courtbashing_not?show=news&newsID=12371>
> .
> [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=28216&title=“New
> S.C. Poll: Colbert Hot, Court-Bashing Not†&description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D28216&title=%E2%80%9CNew%20S.C.%20Poll%3A%20Colbert%20Hot%2C%20Court-Bashing%20Not%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in judicial elections <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=19> | Comments
> Off
> Bonus Quote of the Day (Tort Law Edition)<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=28213>
> Posted on January 18, 2012 1:24 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=28213>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> “[Y]ou always assume the risk of using the student refrigerator.”
>
> UCLAW SBA, responding to a theft of lunches from student fridges (via Above
> the Law<http://abovethelaw.com/2012/01/there-is-a-law-school-lunch-thief-running-wild-in-our-midst/#more-127654>
> ).
> [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=28213&title=Bonus
> Quote of the Day (Tort Law Edition)&description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D28213&title=Bonus%20Quote%20of%20the%20Day%20%28Tort%20Law%20Edition%29&description=>
> Posted in Uncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1> | Comments Off
> “Ellis: Texas unable to prove ID law won’t discriminate”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=28210>
> Posted on January 18, 2012 12:12 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=28210>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> See here<http://blog.chron.com/texaspolitics/2012/01/ellis-texas-unable-to-prove-id-law-wont-discriminate/>
> .
> [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=28210&title=“Ellis:
> Texas unable to prove ID law won’t discriminate†&description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D28210&title=%E2%80%9CEllis%3A%20Texas%20unable%20to%20prove%20ID%20law%20won%E2%80%99t%20discriminate%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in Department of Justice <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=26>, voter
> id <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>, Voting Rights Act<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
> | Comments Off
> Did Citizens United Lead to Super PACs? Setting the Record Straight<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=28207>
> Posted on January 18, 2012 11:42 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=28207>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> *Salon* is out with an interview today<http://www.salon.com/2012/01/18/is_citizens_united_just_misunderstood/singleton/>with Floyd Abrams (noted First Amendment lawyer and campaign finance law
> opponent). Abrams took the *NY Times *to task<http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/17/opinion/citizens-united-decision.html?_r=1>for blaming the $5 million Adelson contribution to Super PACs on
> *Citizens United*. Abrams says it is *Buckley v. Valeo*, recognizing an
> individual’s right to spend money on elections, not *Citizens United*,
> which is responsible for the emergence of Super PACs.
>
> That’s not the whole story, and misses the relevance of *Citizens United*.
>
> Here are the main points.
>
> 1. Before *Citizens United*, individuals could indeed spend unlimited
> sums on independent advertising directly supporting or opposing
> candidates. But that money had to be spent by the individual directly. It
> could not be given to a political action committee, which had an individual
> contribution cap of $5,000 and could not take corporate or union funding.
> In many cases, wealthy individuals did not want to spend their own money on
> advertising, which would say “Paid for by Sheldon Adelson” or “Paid for by
> George Soros”, so fewer of these ads happened. And corporations or unions
> could not play in this way.
>
> 2. Before *Citizens United*, an individual who wanted to spend money to
> influence a federal election but who did not want his or her name plastered
> across every ad sometimes gave to groups which came to be known as “527s”
> (for a particular provision of the tax code). 527s claimed they could take
> unlimited money from individuals (and sometimes claimed a right to
> corporate and labor union money) on grounds that they were not PACS under
> the FEC definition of PACs. These 527s were somewhat successful (George
> Soros gave $23 million to try to help pro-Kerry 527s in 2004 get Kerry
> elected), but a legal cloud always hung over them. I remember well when
> Bob Bauer, then candidate Obama’s lawyer, barged in on a pro-Hillary
> Clinton conference call <http://electionlawblog.org/archives/010292.html>to say that people giving to 527s to support Clinton could face criminal
> liability.
>
> 3. After and following *Citizens United*, the courts (most importantly in
> *Speechnow*) and the FEC provided a blessing for independent only
> expenditure committees (Super PACs) to collect unlimited sums from
> individuals, labor unions, and corporations. The theory was that, per *Citizens
> United*, if independent spending cannot corrupt, then contributions to
> fund independent spending cannot corrupt either. (I am quite<http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2011/10/citizens_united_how_justice_kennedy_has_paved_the_way_for_the_re.single.html>critical<http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/09/opinion/hasen-super-pacs/index.html?eref=rss_topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A%20rss%2Fcnn_topstories%20%28RSS%3A%20Top%20Stories%29>of this theory about corruption, but that’s besides the point here.) So
> what was once of questionable legality or illegality before *Citizens
> United* is of fully blessed legality after *Citizens United*. So *Citizens
> United* allowed for independent spending to flourish, in ways that it
> could not before.
>
> 4. On top of this–and here is where Abrams is right–through no fault of
> the Supreme Court in *Citizens United*, it has become quite easy to evade
> or avoid adequate disclosure. Part of this came about because three
> Republican Commissioners on the FEC have embraced an anti-disclosure
> reading<http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2011/01/the_fec_is_as_good_as_dead.html>of the statutes and regulations. Part of it requires a legislative or
> regulatory response, so that individuals cannot give to a 501(c)(4) (such
> as Crossroads GPS or Colbert’s Super PAC SHHH) to shield their identity as
> money is transferred to the Super PAC (such as American Crossroads or the
> Colbert Super PAC.) Part requires tightening up the time frame for
> disclosure of Super PAC contributions. (Most Super PACs now won’t be
> disclosing their funding until the presidential nomination on the
> Republican side is all but locked up.) But there is no political will
> among Republican Commissioners at the FEC or among Republicans in Congress
> <http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2010/10/show_me_the_donors.html>to
> fix the disclosure problem. Disclosure, which used to be supported by a
> bipartisan consensus, has gotten entangled in this morass.
>
> Bottom line: *Citizens United* has led, indirectly but surely, to the
> emergence of Super PACs. But it is up to Congress, not the Supreme Court,
> to fix the disclosure problems with Super PACs.
> [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=28207&title=Did
> Citizens United Lead to Super PACs? Setting the Record
> Straight&description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D28207&title=Did%20Citizens%20United%20Lead%20to%20Super%20PACs%3F%20Setting%20the%20Record%20Straight&description=>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> | Comments
> Off
> “Scott hires Ken Detzner as new secretary of state”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=28204>
> Posted on January 18, 2012 10:43 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=28204>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> News<http://www.postonpolitics.com/2012/01/scott-hires-ken-detzner-as-new-secretary-of-state/>from Florida.
> [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=28204&title=“Scott
> hires Ken Detzner as new secretary of state†&description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D28204&title=%E2%80%9CScott%20hires%20Ken%20Detzner%20as%20new%20secretary%20of%20state%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18> | Comments
> Off
> Did Santorum Beat Gingrich in New Hampshire?<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=28201>
> Posted on January 18, 2012 9:29 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=28201>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Michael McDonald
> <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-p-mcdonald/second-place-in-nh-democr_b_1213219.html>includes
> the write-ins and votes in the Dem. primary and finds some interesting
> results.
> [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=28201&title=Did
> Santorum Beat Gingrich in New Hampshire?&description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D28201&title=Did%20Santorum%20Beat%20Gingrich%20in%20New%20Hampshire%3F&description=>
> Posted in campaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59> | Comments Off
> “Ex-DOJ Voting Section Chief Now Representing South Carolina in Voter ID
> Fight” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=28198>
> Posted on January 18, 2012 9:13 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=28198>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Main Justice<http://www.mainjustice.com/2012/01/11/ex-doj-voting-section-chief-now-representing-south-carolina-in-voter-id-fight/>:
> Christopher Coates teams up with Paul Clement<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=27761>in a case that could well
> bring down<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>section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. One of Coates’ former co-workers
> writes of sadness at this development.
> [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=28198&title=“Ex-DOJ
> Voting Section Chief Now Representing South Carolina in Voter ID Fightâ€
> &description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D28198&title=%E2%80%9CEx-DOJ%20Voting%20Section%20Chief%20Now%20Representing%20South%20Carolina%20in%20Voter%20ID%20Fight%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in Supreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>, The Voting
> Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>, voter id<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>,
> Voting Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15> | Comments Off
> “Secretaries Of State At Center Of Election Battles”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=28195>
> Posted on January 18, 2012 9:06 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=28195>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> NPR reports<http://www.npr.org/2012/01/18/145351397/secretaries-of-state-at-center-of-election-battles>
> .
> [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=28195&title=“Secretaries
> Of State At Center Of Election Battles†&description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D28195&title=%E2%80%9CSecretaries%20Of%20State%20At%20Center%20Of%20Election%20Battles%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The
> Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60> | Comments Off
> “How Big Money Super PACs are Reshaping the GOP Race”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=28192>
> Posted on January 18, 2012 8:44 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=28192>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> PBS News Hour reports<http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june12/superpacs_01-17.html>
> .
> [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=28192&title=“How
> Big Money Super PACs are Reshaping the GOP Race†&description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D28192&title=%E2%80%9CHow%20Big%20Money%20Super%20PACs%20are%20Reshaping%20the%20GOP%20Race%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> | Comments
> Off
> “Law Blog Fireside: Jenner’s Paul Smith, Redistricting Pro”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=28189>
> Posted on January 18, 2012 8:40 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=28189>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Here<http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2012/01/18/law-blog-fireside-jenners-paul-smith-redistricting-pro/>
> .
> [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=28189&title=“Law
> Blog Fireside: Jenner’s Paul Smith, Redistricting Pro†&description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D28189&title=%E2%80%9CLaw%20Blog%20Fireside%3A%20Jenner%E2%80%99s%20Paul%20Smith%2C%20Redistricting%20Pro%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in Uncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1> | Comments Off
> “Mitt Romney’s flawed plan to ‘fix’ campaign financing”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=28186>
> Posted on January 18, 2012 8:03 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=28186>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> *WaPo* editorializes<http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mitt-romneys-flawed-plan-to-fix-campaign-financing/2012/01/17/gIQAsfXY6P_story.html>
> .
> [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=28186&title=“Mitt
> Romney’s flawed plan to ‘fix’ campaign financing†&description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D28186&title=%E2%80%9CMitt%20Romney%E2%80%99s%20flawed%20plan%20to%20%E2%80%98fix%E2%80%99%20campaign%20financing%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> | Comments
> Off
> Quote of the Day <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=28183>
> Posted on January 18, 2012 7:43 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=28183>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> By giving corporations free rein to meddle in politics without any
> accountability required, just like in the robber baron days, and by
> defining money as speech, the court dealt a body blow to American
> democracy. Candidates no longer can focus simply on raising money for their
> campaigns against other candidates. Because corporations have almost
> unlimited sums they can put in with no notice, candidates have to raise
> protection money in advance just in case such a campaign is waged against
> them.
>
> And in many cases, as I have written before, they will pay for protection
> by quietly giving companies or other interests what they want legislatively
> to avoid a multimillion-dollar slime campaign against them. Supreme Court
> Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion in Citizens United,
> said there could be no corruption in independent spending. What planet does
> he live on?
>
> Norm Ornstein<http://www.rollcall.com/issues/57_80/effect_citizens_united_felt_two_years_later-211556-1.html>,
> in *Roll Call*, on the second anniversary of *Citizens United*. I
> sounded similar themes here<http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/09/opinion/hasen-super-pacs/index.html?eref=rss_topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A%20rss%2Fcnn_topstories%20%28RSS%3A%20Top%20Stories%29>
> .
> [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=28183&title=Quote
> of the Day&description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D28183&title=Quote%20of%20the%20Day&description=>
> --
> 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
>
--
Stephen M. Hoersting
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120119/5c4f432f/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1520 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120119/5c4f432f/attachment.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1520 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120119/5c4f432f/attachment-0001.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1520 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120119/5c4f432f/attachment-0002.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1520 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120119/5c4f432f/attachment-0003.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1520 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120119/5c4f432f/attachment-0004.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1520 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120119/5c4f432f/attachment-0005.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1520 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120119/5c4f432f/attachment-0006.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1520 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120119/5c4f432f/attachment-0007.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1520 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120119/5c4f432f/attachment-0008.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1520 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120119/5c4f432f/attachment-0009.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1520 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120119/5c4f432f/attachment-0010.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1520 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120119/5c4f432f/attachment-0011.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1520 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120119/5c4f432f/attachment-0012.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1520 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120119/5c4f432f/attachment-0013.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1520 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120119/5c4f432f/attachment-0014.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1520 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120119/5c4f432f/attachment-0015.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1520 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120119/5c4f432f/attachment-0016.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1520 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120119/5c4f432f/attachment-0017.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1520 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120119/5c4f432f/attachment-0018.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1520 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120119/5c4f432f/attachment-0019.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1520 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120119/5c4f432f/attachment-0020.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1520 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120119/5c4f432f/attachment-0021.bin>
View list directory