[EL] Illinois Eliminates Contribution Limits when Super PACs spend
JBoppjr at aol.com
JBoppjr at aol.com
Thu Jul 12 05:14:55 PDT 2012
_Click here: Illinois Issues blog: New law could roll back some limits on
campaign money_
(http://illinoisissuesblog.blogspot.com/2012/07/new-law-could-roll-back-some-limits-on.html)
This is just the first domino to fall. Low contribution limits have
distorted the system, maded it less transparent and accountable, and
rendered candidates increasingly irrelevant. The only solution is to fix the
cause of the problem by raising or eliminating contribution limits. It is
interesting that it is a solid blue state that is the first one to do it. Jim
Bopp
In a message dated 7/12/2012 1:03:46 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
rhasen at law.uci.edu writes:
_Was Chief Justice Roberts Most Unprincipled in Applying the Doctrine of
Constitutional Avoidance in the Health Care Case, in NAMUDNO (the Voting
Rights Act Case) or in Citizens United?_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36823)
Posted on _July 11, 2012 9:57 pm_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36823)
by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
In _my initial post _ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36309) on the health
care decision, I stated “Once again, the Chief _has manipulated the
doctrine of constitutional avoidance_
(http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1436669) to do what he wanted to do in a high profile, important
case.”
I hadn’t had a chance to go back and expand on this issue since I wrote
that, but Nicholas Rosenkranz’s _very smart post_
(http://electionlawblog.org/cotusreport.com/2012/07/11/roberts-was-wrong-to-apply-the-canon-of-constitut
ional-avoidance-to-the-mandate/) has prompted me to do so. Rosenkranz
persuasively argues that Roberts’ use of the avoidance canon in the health
care case is not your typical application of the canon: rather than apply it,
as is typically done, to a textual ambiguity (such as to the question
whether a ban on “vehicles” in the park covers bicycles), the Chief applies to
to alternative “constitutional characterizations” of an unambiguous law
(the health care mandate is either an unconstitutional “penalty” or a
constitutional “tax”).
As poor as this analysis is as an application of the avoidance canon, CJ
Roberts engaged in two worse applications of the canon in recent years. In
the _NAMUDNO _ (http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2008/2008_08_322) case,
considering the constitutionality of section 5 of the Voting Rights Act,
the Court read the Voting Rights Act to allow for a utility district to “bail
out” from coverage under the Act, an interpretation that the Chief
Justice advanced to avoid the constitutional question whether section 5 was
unconstitutional. Unlike the health care case, in NAMUDNO the Court did
confront a question about textual meaning (did the Voting Rights Act give the
utility district a chance to “bail out” from coverage of the act?). But the
unprincipled part of the decision was that the textual meaning advanced by
the Chief Justice was wholly unsupported by the text or the legislative
history of the Act. I devote about half of my article, _Constitutional
Avoidance and Anti-Avoidance by the Roberts Court_
(http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1436669) , 2009 Supreme Court Review 181, to
demonstrating the truth of this assertion. Below the fold, I’ve included an excerpt
from my article explaining why the district court so thoroughly rejected
the argument that it should avoid the constitutional question by
interpreting the Act to allow the utility district to bail out.
As with the taxing power analysis by the Chief in the health care case, the
bailout analysis in NAMUDNO was a total surprise. See Heather Gerken,
_The Supreme Court Punts on Section 5,_
(http://%20balkin.blogspot.com/2009/06/supreme-court-punts-on-section-5.html) Balkinization (June 22, 2009) (“the
statutory argument is one that almost no one (save Greg Coleman, the
lawyer who argued the case and who is now entitled to be described as a mad
genius) thought was particularly tenable because of prior Court opinions.”);
Richard L. Hasen, Sordid Business: Will the Supreme Court Kill the Voting
Rights Act? Slate (Apr 27, 2009), online at _http://www.slate.com/id/2216888/_
(http://www.slate.com/id/2216888/) (“Since there’s no good statutory
loophole, the larger constitutional question seems unavoidable.”).
And then there’s _Citizens United_
(http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2008/2008_08_205) , the well known case in which the Supreme Court on a 5-4
vote struck down the limits on independent corporate spending in elections.
Constitutional avoidance was an issue there too. As I explain in my
article, a week after NAMUDNO was issued, the Court announced it would not be
deciding Citizens United by the Court’s summer break as scheduled. Instead,
the Court set the case for reargument in September (before the start of the
new Court Term), expressly asking the parties to brief the question whether
the Court should overturn two of its precedents upholding the
constitutionality of corporate spending limits in candidate elections. The
constitutional issue had been abandoned by the law’s challengers in the court below and
was not even mentioned in the challengers’ jurisdictional statement.
Moreover, the constitutional question could easily be avoided through a plausible
interpretation of the applicable campaign finance statute. Among other
things, the the Court could have held that video-on-demand, which requires a
cable subscriber to choose to download video for viewing, is not a “
broadcast, cable or satellite communication that refers to a candidate for federal
office” as defined by BCRA.
When the Court finally issued Citizens United, Chief Justice Roberts
issued a separate concurring opinion, the main thrust of which appeared to be to
justify not applying the doctrine of constitutional avoidance. He said
that the interpretation offered to avoid the constitutional issue simply was
not a plausible one. “This approach [of the dissent to apply avoidance] is
based on a false premise: that our practice of avoiding unnecessary (and
unnecessarily broad) constitutional holdings somehow trumps our obligation
faithfully to interpret the law. It should go without saying, however, that
we cannot embrace a narrow ground of decision simply because it is narrow;
it must also be right.”
In my earlier article, I tried to explain why the Court applied a canon of
avoidance in NAMUDNO but of anti-avoidance (reach out and decide a
difficult constitutional question even if there is a plausible statutory
construction to avoid it) in Citizens United. I came up with three possible
theories: First, the fruitful dialogue explanation posits that the Court will use
constitutional avoidance only when doing so would further a dialogue with
Congress that has a realistic chance of actually avoiding constitutional
problems through redrafting. On this reading, the Voting Rights Act got “
remanded” to Congress because Congress may fix it in ways that do not violate
the Constitution, but the corporate spending limits provision of federal
campaign finance law perhaps does not deserve remand because the campaign
finance laws are not constitutionally fixable. Second, the political legitimacy
explanation posits that the Court uses the constitutional avoidance
doctrine when it fears that a fullblown constitutional pronouncement would harm
its legitimacy. Some evidence supports this understanding. In the same Term
that the Court avoided the constitutional question in NAMUDNO, it used the
same avoidance canon to narrowly construe a different provision of the
Voting Rights Act in Bartlett v Strickland, and it applied constitutional
avoidance (in deed if not in name) to narrowly construe Title VII of the 1964
Civil Rights Act in Ricci v DeStefano, the controversial New Haven
firefighters case. Each of these cases involved tough questions of race relations
whose resolution could harm the Court’s legitimacy. In contrast, campaign
finance issues are much lower salience to the public, and are less likely to
arouse the passion of interest groups and perhaps the ire of Congress. Third,
the political calculus explanation posits that the Court uses
constitutional avoidance to soften public and Congressional resistance to the Court’s
movement of the law in a direction that the Court prefers as a matter of
policy.
The Chief Justice’s application of the constitutional avoidance canon in
the health care case fits with the second and third rationales. The Chief
could have engaged in the questionable act of avoidance to preserve the Court’
s legitimacy. Alternatively, as others have suggested he may be playing
the long game, sacrificing a chance to strike down the health care law in
order to set new markers on issues including the commerce clause and the
spending power.
But what these three opinions have in common is the Chief Justice’s
selective manipulation of the constitutional avoidance doctrine for legal and
political ends. This does not make the Chief Justice unique as a Supreme
Court Justice—far from it. But it hardly makes him the neutral umpire he
fancies himself.
_Continue reading →_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36823#more-36823)
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36823&title=Was%20Chief%20Justice%20Roberts%20Most%20Unprincipled%20in%20Applying
%20the%20Doctrine%20of%20Constitutional%20Avoidance%20in%20the%20Health%20Ca
re%20Case,%20in%20NAMUDNO%20(the%20Voting%20Rights%20Act%20Case)%20or%20in%2
0Citizens%20United?&description=)
Posted in _campaign finance_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10) ,
_statutory interpretation_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=21) , _Voting Rights
Act_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15) | Comments Off
_“Money gap may not matter so much in November”_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36820)
Posted on _July 11, 2012 8:55 pm_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36820)
by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
_An important piece,_
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/romney-surpasses-obama-in-june-fundraising/2012/07/09/gJQA6RMZYW_story.html) which
reaffirms my conviction that the more important role of Super PACs and c4s in
this election will be about control of the Senate (and potentially, though
less likely, the House).
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36820&title=“Money%20gap%20may%20not%20matter%20so%20much%20in%20November”
&description=)
Posted in _campaign finance_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10) |
Comments Off
_“New Court Challenge Filed Against FEC Restrictions on Corporate PACs”_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36817)
Posted on _July 11, 2012 8:49 pm_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36817)
by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
_Bloomberg BNA_
(http://news.bna.com/mpdm/MPDMWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=27295083&vname=mpebulallissues&jd=a0d3m6w5m2&split=0) : “A new court
challenge to Federal Election Commission rules for corporate political action
committees was filed July 10 in federal district court in Washington (Stop This
Insanity Inc. Employee Leadership Fund v. FEC, D.D.C., Civil No. 12-1140,
filed 7/10/12). The court filing came after FEC deadlocked in March on an
advisory opinion request asking whether a corporate political action
committee (PAC) may solicit unlimited contributions to pay for independent
campaign expenditures.”
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36817&title=“
New%20Court%20Challenge%20Filed%20Against%20FEC%20Restrictions%20on%20Corporate%20PACs”&description=)
Posted in _campaign finance_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10) |
Comments Off
_“Senate Expected to Hold Cloture Vote On Bill to Disclose Political Ad
Funding”_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36815)
Posted on _July 11, 2012 8:47 pm_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36815)
by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
_Bloomberg BNA_
(http://news.bna.com/mpdm/MPDMWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=27295082&vname=mpebulallissues&jd=a0d3m6t0v8&split=0) : “Reformers say they
do not know yet whether they will pick up enough Republican votes needed to
reach the 60-vote margin for cloture on the so-called DISCLOSE Act—or any
GOP votes. Every Republican senator who voted when it last came up in 2010,
voted to block the disclosure legislation.”
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36815&title=“
Senate%20Expected%20to%20Hold%20Cloture%20Vote%20On%20Bill%20to%20Disclose%20Political%20Ad%20Funding”&description=)
Posted in _campaign finance_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10) |
Comments Off
_Breaking News: Senate Will Vote on Cloture for Disclose Act on July 16_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36812)
Posted on _July 11, 2012 11:50 am_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36812)
by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
So reports subscription-only Bloomberg BNA’s Money and Politics report, in
an email alert.
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36812&title=Breaking%20News:%20Senate%20Will%20Vote%20on%20Cloture%20for%20Disclo
se%20Act%20on%20July%2016&description=)
Posted in _campaign finance_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10) |
Comments Off
_“NRSC to Nevada SOS: What happens if Berkley withdraws from the U.S.
Senate race?”_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36809)
Posted on _July 11, 2012 11:42 am_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36809)
by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
Jon Ralston r_eports_
(http://www.lasvegassun.com/blogs/ralstons-flash/2012/jul/11/nrsc-nevada-sos-what-happens-if-berkley-withdraws-/) .
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36809&title=“
NRSC%20to%20Nevada%20SOS:%20What%20happens%20if%20Berkley%20withdraws%20from%20the%20U.S.%20Senate%20race?”&description=)
Posted in _campaigns_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59) | Comments Off
_Understanding Election Fraud Allegations in the Recent Mexican Election_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36807)
Posted on _July 11, 2012 11:41 am_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36807)
by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
_This post_
(http://themonkeycage.org/blog/2012/07/11/post-election-report-ii-revisiting-fraud-and-the-2012-mexican-presidential-election/) at the
Monkey Cage is well worth reading.
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36807&title=Understanding%20Election%20Fraud%20Allegations%20in%20the%20Recent%20
Mexican%20Election&description=)
Posted in _chicanery_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12) , _election
administration_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18) | Comments Off
_“Txt 4 Ur Candidate”_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36804)
Posted on _July 11, 2012 11:23 am_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36804)
by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
Ann Ravel, Jared Demarnis and Hyla Wagner have _this piece _
(http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/31/text-donations-to-2012/) at NYT’s “
Campaign Stops” blog.
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36804&title=“Txt%204%20Ur%20Candidate”&description=)
Posted in _campaign finance_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10) |
Comments Off
_“Broadcasters Make Emergency Motion to Block Transparency Rule”_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36801)
Posted on _July 11, 2012 11:15 am_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36801)
by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
ProPublica _reports_
(http://www.propublica.org/article/broadcasters-make-emergency-motion-to-block-transparency-rule) .
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36801&title=“
Broadcasters%20Make%20Emergency%20Motion%20to%20Block%20Transparency%20Rule”&description=)
Posted in _campaign finance_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10) |
Comments Off
_“Misleading Data on Outside Spending”_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36798)
Posted on _July 11, 2012 11:11 am_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36798)
by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
Jonathan Backer _blogs_
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-backer/misleading-data-on-outsid_b_1664562.html) .
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36798&title=“Misleading%20Data%20on%20Outside%20Spending”&description=)
Posted in _campaign finance_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10) |
Comments Off
_“The ‘CBO Canon’ and the Debate Over Tax Credits on Federally Operated
Health Insurance Exchanges”_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36795)
Posted on _July 11, 2012 10:06 am_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36795)
by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
The following is a guest post from Abbe Gluck [cross-posted from
_Balkinization_
(http://balkin.blogspot.com/2012/07/cbo-canon-and-debate-over-tax-credits.htmlhttp://) ]:
Abbe Gluck
The latest fracas over health reform—the challenge to subsidies for the
federal exchanges—offers a long-overdue opportunity to think about how
particular features of modern lawmaking might lead to new interpretive
presumptions for statutory interpretation. This is the first of series of posts in
which I will flesh out that idea. Here, I will focus on the role of the
Congressional Budget Office, and how the “budget score” (the budgetary estimate
of the effects of legislation) might be a useful tool of modern statutory
interpretation, and how it sheds light on the current debate over the
federal exchanges.
In a forthcoming article based on an empirical study of congressional
drafting (co-authored with Lisa Bressman), we have argued for a new “CBO canon”
: An interpretive presumption that ambiguities in legislation should be
construed in the way most consistent with the assumptions underlying the
congressional budget score on which the initial legislation was based. Both our
empirical study and numerous articles in the political science and popular
literature substantiate the notion that Congress now drafts in the shadow
of the score. In the context of health reform, there was widespread
reporting to this effect. As just one of many examples, the New York Times reported
in March 2010: “Democrats have spent more than a year working with the
nonpartisan budget office… Whenever the budget office judged some element or
elements of the bill would cause a problem meeting the cost and
deficit-reduction targets, Democrats just adjusted the underlying legislation to make
sure it would hit their goal.”
Indeed, I would suggest that the budget score offers better evidence of
congressional “intent” than other commonly consulted non-textual tools,
including legislative history. This is because, unlike some types of
legislative history, the budget score is produced by a nonpartisan office, widely
publicized, often debated and usually the focus of many members and staffers.
This gives it indicia of reliability that critics of legislative history
have often thought lacking for that tool, and yet to my knowledge the Court
has never used the score to help resolve statutory ambiguities.
This brings us to the most recent ACA-related scuffle. The ACA’s opponents
have raised a challenge to the IRS’s interpretation that the Act allows
subsidies not only for those who buy insurance on state-operated exchanges,
but also for those who live in states with federally-operated exchanges. The
dispute stems from what was most certainly sloppy drafting in the statute—
in particular, the separation into two different sections of those
provisions concerning the state exchanges and those provisions allowing the federal
government to operate an exchange if states are unwilling or unable to do
so. (This issue of how courts should construe such hastily-enacted and
lengthy statutes is another one that we take up in our forthcoming article and
to which I will return in a future post).
In my view, the overall structure of the Act and its legislative history,
plus the confirmatory language in the health reform reconciliation bill,
amply support the IRS’s position. If more is wanting, however, the CBO
evidence makes it a slam dunk. Throughout the debates and reporting over health
reform, legislators, the Administration and the media repeatedly discussed
and debated the ACA’s CBO score, and at all times that score was based on the
provision of subsidies to all qualifying purchasers on the exchanges,
regardless of whether those exchanges were operated by the states or the
federal government. The “CBO canon” clearly supports the agency’s
interpretation.
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36795&title=“The%20‘CBO%20Canon’
%20and%20the%20Debate%20Over%20Tax%20Credits%20on%20Federally%20Operated%20Health%20Insurance%20Exchanges”&description=)
Posted in _legislation and legislatures_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=27) , _statutory interpretation_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=21) |
Comments Off
_Politifact Rates as “Mostly True”: Eric Holder says recent studies show
25 percent of African Americans, 8 percent of whites lack government-issued
photo IDs_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36792)
Posted on _July 11, 2012 9:32 am_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36792)
by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
_Here_
(http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2012/jul/11/eric-holder/eric-holder-says-recent-studies-show-25-percent-af/) .
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36792&title=Politifact%20Rates%20as%20“Mostly%20True”
:%20Eric%20Holder%20says%20recent%20studies%20show%2025%20percent%20of%20African%20Americans,%208%20per
cent%20of%20whites%20lack%20government-issued%20photo%20IDs&description=)
Posted in _election administration_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18) ,
_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
_Updated Book Tour Information for The Voting Wars_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36789)
Posted on _July 11, 2012 8:25 am_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36789)
by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
Here’s the latest version of _the schedule_
(http://thevotingwars.com/book-tour/) (more about the imminent release of_ the book_
(http://www.amazon.com/The-Voting-Wars-Election-Meltdown/dp/0300182031/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=13
42020278&sr=8-1&keywords=the+voting+wars) at _thevotingwars.com)_
(http://thevotingwars.com/) :
_The Voting Wars_ (http://thevotingwars.com/)
* _front page_ (http://thevotingwars.com/)
* _About the Author_ (http://thevotingwars.com/about-the-author/)
* _About the Book_ (http://thevotingwars.com/)
* _Book Tour_ (http://thevotingwars.com/book-tour/)
* _Endorsements_ (http://thevotingwars.com/reviews/)
* _Media Coverage_ (http://thevotingwars.com/media-appearances/)
* _Pre-Order the Book_ (http://thevotingwars.com/pre-order-the-book/)
* _Reviews_ (http://thevotingwars.com/reviewsmedia/)
Book Tour
Times/dates are subject to change
July 2, 630 PM London (H.S. Chapman Society) (_details_
(http://www.hschapman.org.uk/html/future_programme.html) )
September 10, 12 PM New York City (Brennan Center for Justice) (details to
come)
September 10, 7 PM Washington D.C. (University of California D.C. Center)
(details to come)
September 11, 12 pm Boston (Harvard Law School – American Constitution
Society) (details to come)
September 12, 12 pm Chicago (Northwestern University Law School – American
Constitution Society) (details to come)
September 20, 7 pm Los Angeles (details to come–part of panel program for
LA ALOUD)
October 1, 12 pm, Stanford (Stanford Law School – American Constitution
Society) (details to come)
October 1, 5 pm, UC Berkeley (UC Berekely Law School – American
Constitution Society) (details to come)
October 2, 12 pm, Sacramento (American Constitution Society (details to
come)
October 8, 12 pm, Williamsburg, VA (William & Mary Law School) (details to
come)
October 10, 12 pm, Lexington, KY (University of Kentucky Law School)
(details to come)
October 18, time TBA, Bakersfield, CA (part of Zocalo panel program)
(details to come)
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36789&title=Updated%20Book%20Tour%20Information%20for%20The%20Voting%20Wars&descr
iption=)
Posted in _The Voting Wars_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60) |
Comments Off
_Marilyn Marks Oped on Her Battle With the City of Aspen_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36786)
Posted on _July 11, 2012 8:19 am_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36786)
by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
_Here_
(http://www.aspentimes.com/article/20120711/COLUMN/120719981/1021&parentprofile=1061) . More news on the battle _here_
(http://www.aspentimes.com/article/20120711/NEWS/120719984/1077&ParentProfile=1058) .
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36786&title=Marilyn%20Marks%20Oped%20on%20Her%20Battle%20With%20the%20City%20of%2
0Aspen&description=)
Posted in _election administration_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18)
| Comments Off
_“Romney surging, but Obama well ahead in campaign cash”_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36784)
Posted on _July 11, 2012 8:17 am_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36784)
by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
Sunlight _reports._
(http://reporting.sunlightfoundation.com/2012/fundraising-analysis/)
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36784&title=“
Romney%20surging,%20but%20Obama%20well%20ahead%20in%20campaign%20cash”&description=)
Posted in _campaign finance_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10) |
Comments Off
_Is Eric Holder Right on Voter ID?_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36781)
Posted on _July 11, 2012 8:16 am_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36781)
by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
_I’ve posted some thoughts_
(http://www.politico.com/arena/perm/Richard_Hasen_D882E526-3599-4C82-9A7D-21A65E2C8281.html) over at Politico’s Arena.
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=36781&title=Is%20Eric%20Holder%20Right%20on%20Voter%20ID?&description=)
Posted in _Department of Justice_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=26) ,
_fraudulent fraud squad_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=8) , _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
--
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://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html)
_http://electionlawblog.org_ (http://electionlawblog.org/)
Pre-order The Voting Wars: _http://amzn.to/y22ZTv_ (http://amzn.to/y22ZTv)
_______________________________________________
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/20120712/581e2b36/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120712/581e2b36/attachment.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120712/581e2b36/attachment-0001.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120712/581e2b36/attachment-0002.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120712/581e2b36/attachment-0003.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120712/581e2b36/attachment-0004.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120712/581e2b36/attachment-0005.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120712/581e2b36/attachment-0006.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120712/581e2b36/attachment-0007.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120712/581e2b36/attachment-0008.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120712/581e2b36/attachment-0009.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120712/581e2b36/attachment-0010.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120712/581e2b36/attachment-0011.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: cropped-thevotingwars_1000x288.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 23307 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120712/581e2b36/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120712/581e2b36/attachment-0012.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120712/581e2b36/attachment-0013.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120712/581e2b36/attachment-0014.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120712/581e2b36/attachment-0015.bin>
View list directory