[EL] ELB News and Commentary 1/19/12

Smith, Brad BSmith at law.capital.edu
Thu Jan 19 06:54:30 PST 2012 

To follow up on Jim's post:

Indeed, further back, in California Medical Association v. FEC (1981), 5 justices agreed that limits on the size of contributions to what we now call "Super PACs" would be unconstitutional. A 5-4 decision upheld the law prohibiting an unincorporated association from contributing more than $5000 to its own PAC.

The decisive 5th vote to uphold the statute came from Justice Blackmun, who wrote, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment:


"I conclude that contributions to multicandidate political committees may be limited to $5,000 per year as a means of preventing evasion of the limitations on contributions to a candidate or his authorized campaign committee upheld in Buckley. The statute challenged here is thus analogous to the $25,000 limitation on total contributions in a given year that Buckley held to be constitutional.

"I stress, however, that this analysis suggests that a different result would follow if § 441a(a)(1)(C) were applied to contributions to a political committee established for the purpose of making independent expenditures, rather than contributions to candidates. By definition, a multicandidate political committee like CALPAC makes contributions to five or more candidates for federal office. § 441a(a)(4). Multicandidate political committees are therefore essentially conduits for contributions to candidates, and, as such, they pose a perceived threat of actual or potential corruption. In contrast, contributions to a committee that makes only independent expenditures pose no such threat."

Indeed, given that, it was a Federal Election Commission that inhibited the creation of Super PACs for nearly 30 years by its refusal to "follow the law," that is, to apply the law in the constitutional fashion that a majority of the Supreme Court understood to be correct based on California Medical Association. And it was California Medical Association that was the key authority on which the plaintiffs in SpeechNow relied. (Note that SpeechNow.org was not incorporated and did not accept corporate contributions). Of course, there was also the intervening 1991 decision in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce. Beyond the fact that Austin was always the uncomfortable outlier in the jurisprudence, I wonder if it would not have reached a different result had the FEC enforced the law in accordance with the majority view in Cal Med. Indeed, Austin's majority never cites Cal Med, though oddly, neither does the dissent. Everyone seems to have missed the importance of Blackmun's concurrence. But as Kennedy pointed out in Citizens United, the expenditure ban struck down in Buckley extended to corporations and unions, and corporations were included amongst the plaintiffs in Buckley. Thus an irony - as certain members of the reform community routinely excoriate the Federal Election Commission for what they believe to be 35 years of "failure to enforce the law," in fact an FEC more faithful to the law would likely have made clear back in 1976 that Super PACs were permissible.

In any case, Jim is correct, that Super PACs would almost certainly have arrived in 2010 with or without Citizens United. Given the positive effects that Super PACs have had on competition, that's a good thing.



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 JBoppjr at aol.com [JBoppjr at aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2012 8:53 AM
To: rhasen at law.uci.edu; law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] ELB News and Commentary 1/19/12

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.

[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.

[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>

[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>.

[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.

[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>.

[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?”&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>.

[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>

[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 Field”&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?

[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>.

[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>.

[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>).

[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/>.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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 Fight”&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>.

[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>.

[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/>.

[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>.

[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>.

[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<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>
http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html
http://electionlawblog.org<http://electionlawblog.org/>


_______________________________________________
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/20120119/d4425c95/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1520 bytes
Desc: share_save_171_16.png
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120119/d4425c95/attachment.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1520 bytes
Desc: share_save_171_16.png
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120119/d4425c95/attachment-0001.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1520 bytes
Desc: share_save_171_16.png
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120119/d4425c95/attachment-0002.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1520 bytes
Desc: share_save_171_16.png
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120119/d4425c95/attachment-0003.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1520 bytes
Desc: share_save_171_16.png
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120119/d4425c95/attachment-0004.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1520 bytes
Desc: share_save_171_16.png
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120119/d4425c95/attachment-0005.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1520 bytes
Desc: share_save_171_16.png
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120119/d4425c95/attachment-0006.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1520 bytes
Desc: share_save_171_16.png
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120119/d4425c95/attachment-0007.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1520 bytes
Desc: share_save_171_16.png
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120119/d4425c95/attachment-0008.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1520 bytes
Desc: share_save_171_16.png
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120119/d4425c95/attachment-0009.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1520 bytes
Desc: share_save_171_16.png
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120119/d4425c95/attachment-0010.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1520 bytes
Desc: share_save_171_16.png
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120119/d4425c95/attachment-0011.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1520 bytes
Desc: share_save_171_16.png
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120119/d4425c95/attachment-0012.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1520 bytes
Desc: share_save_171_16.png
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120119/d4425c95/attachment-0013.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1520 bytes
Desc: share_save_171_16.png
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120119/d4425c95/attachment-0014.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1520 bytes
Desc: share_save_171_16.png
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120119/d4425c95/attachment-0015.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1520 bytes
Desc: share_save_171_16.png
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120119/d4425c95/attachment-0016.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1520 bytes
Desc: share_save_171_16.png
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120119/d4425c95/attachment-0017.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1520 bytes
Desc: share_save_171_16.png
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120119/d4425c95/attachment-0018.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1520 bytes
Desc: share_save_171_16.png
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120119/d4425c95/attachment-0019.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1520 bytes
Desc: share_save_171_16.png
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120119/d4425c95/attachment-0020.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1520 bytes
Desc: share_save_171_16.png
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120119/d4425c95/attachment-0021.bin>

View list directory