[EL] nonprofit sham political committees

Sun Jul 29 10:08:08 PDT 2012

Rick,

You can't seriously be using the FEC's scorched earth enforcement examples
to illustrate who is a "real" or "sham" political committee.  That the
wealthy and powerful might afford to dance with a federal agency that
regularly violates the Constitution speaks nothing to the harms suffered by
grassroots nationwide.  Ordinary grassroots will simply shut up in the face
of this oppression.  After all, they can be sent to prison or have fines
levied that could bankrupt them if they act outside the scope of the law.
 That's the perversity of campaign finance staring us in the face.

The ever-enlightened FEC has found express advocacy (which triggers real
and horrendous political committee status) when an advertisement "lacked
legislative focus," did not sufficiently urge a candidate to take a
specific action--or, inexplicably, urged that the "wrong" specific action
be taken (like "ask[ing] [the candidate] about his plans to bring our
children back")--or addressed the character, qualifications or fitness of a
candidate for office or after engaging in the never-ending quest to
determine how an audience would "reasonably interpret" the speech in
question.  *See, e.g.*, MUR 5024R (Council for Responsible Government) (FEC
2004); MUR 5440 (Media Fund) (FEC 2004); MURs 5511 & 5525 (Swift Boat
Veterans and POWs for Truth) (FEC 2006); MUR 5631 (Sierra Club) (FEC 2006);
MURs 5910 & 5964 (Americans for Job Security) (FEC 2009); MUR 5988
(American Future Fund) (FEC 2009); MUR 5842 (Economic Freedom Fund) (FEC
2009). This is just a small sample of the FEC's nonsense on stilts.

Everyday Americans should not have to wade through these standardless
standards and play FEC roulette just to speak.

I would never speak for Jim, but I suspect that might be what he's hinting
at.

Forward,

First Amendment Ben

On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:

>  Jim,
> I was referring to political committees which try to use nonprofit tax
> code provisions to pretend they are not really political committees.
> Consider these groups which were determined by the FEC to have violated
> federal law during the 2004 cycle.  ACT paid a $775,000 fine (
> http://www.fec.gov/press/press2007/20070829act.shtml).  SwiftVets paid a
> $299,500 fine (http://www.fec.gov/press/press2006/20061213murs.html).
> Club for Growth paid a $350,000 fine (
> http://www.fec.gov/press/press2007/20070905cfg.shtml).
>
> Note that these fines were all paid in 2006 and 2007 for political
> activity in 2004.
>
> Just a cost of doing business.
>
>
>
>
> On 7/29/2012 7:46 AM, JBoppjr at aol.com wrote:
>
>  Rick comments in article below:
>
> *Nonprofits could always gamble that the slow-moving IRS and gridlocked
> FEC won’t target them even if they flout the law. And if they’re caught,
> the blowback would be relatively minimal when compared with the potential
> for political gain, says Rick Hasen,*
>
> It is apparent by this statement that Rick has no real contact with people
> who run nonprofits.  My experience with nonprofits is that the people who
> run them bend over backwards to make sure they comply with the law. And
> when the line is vague -- which the IRS insists on and the reformers try to
> create in campaign finance -- nonprofits stay even further from the line.
> This includes both conservative nonprofits that I represent and liberal
> ones that I have observed.  There are many good reasons for this, if anyone
> doubts it.
>
> In cases like this, when someone is so willing to ascribe evil motives to
> people that don't even know and have no real familiarity with, I wonder
> if the observer (Rick) is just engaging in projection,
> Click here: Psychological projection - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection> ,
> which actually reveals much more about the observer that the observed.  Jim
> Bopp
>
>  In a message dated 7/27/2012 12:26:36 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> rhasen at law.uci.edu writes:
>
>
>
>  “Karl Rove’s Catch-22″ <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=37629>
> Posted on July 27, 2012 9:24 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=37629> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Must-read<http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/karl-rove-crossroads-gps-dark-money-disclosure>Andy Kroll on the effects of the Van
> Hollen <http://www.fec.gov/press/press2012/20120727_VanHollen_v_FEC.shtml>ruling:
>
> Crossroads GPS spokesman Jonathan Collegio declined to say if and how his
> group’s strategy would change. “Crossroads is aware of the key dates, and
> closely follows all law and regulations that govern the process,” he said
> in an email.
>
> An official at Americans for Prosperity, the conservative nonprofit
> founded<http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer>by David Koch, says AFP brass have met multiple times to discuss how to
> tweak the group’s ad strategy. One option that’s been discussed is ramping
> up the group’s online advertising, which isn’t affected by the beefed-up
> disclosure rule. The staffer stressed that any option forcing AFP to name
> its donors is off the table. The staffer added, however, that AFP would not
> go dark on the airwaves in the run-up to the November elections: “We’re
> going to continue to be on the air and continue to follow the law, and
> we’re gonna protect the identity of our donors.”
>
> Nonprofits could always gamble that the slow-moving IRS and gridlocked FEC
> won’t target them even if they flout the law. And if they’re caught, the
> blowback would be relatively minimal when compared with the potential for
> political gain, says Rick Hasen, an election law expert at the University
> of California, Irvine. It’s unlikely that the IRS or FEC would crack down
> on lawbreakers before Election Day. And if a group got slapped with a six-
> or seven-figure fine after the election, or had to shut down, that’s hardly
> the end of the world, Hasen says. “If a nonprofit has to sacrifice its name
> and pay a fee,” he says, “and it helps keep the House, win back the Senate,
> and take back the White House, that’s a small price to pay.”
>
> For more background, see my *Slate *piece from May, Is Campaign
> Disclosure Heading Back to the Supreme Court? Don’t expect to see Karl
> Rove’s Rolodex just yet.<http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2012/05/don_t_get_too_excited_about_promises_of_imminent_campaign_finance_disclosure__1.html>
>  [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=37629&title=â€œKarl
> Roveâ€™s Catch-22â€³&description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D37629&title=%E2%80%9CKarl%20Rove%E2%80%99s%20Catch-22%E2%80%B3&description=>
>  Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, tax law
> and election law <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=22> | Comments Off
>  “Election official could be pivotal in battleground Colorado”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=37626>
> Posted on July 27, 2012 9:18 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=37626> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Must-read<http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/07/27/12991424-election-official-could-be-pivotal-in-battleground-colorado#.UBK3Tifzldo.twitter>Tom Curry story for NBC News: “Scott Gessler isn’t a household name in
> national politics, but could become famous in a hurry, just as Florida
> Secretary of State Katherine Harris did during the 2000 presidential
> recount.”
>  [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=37626&title=â€œElection
> official could be pivotal in battleground Coloradoâ€ &description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D37626&title=%E2%80%9CElection%20official%20could%20be%20pivotal%20in%20battleground%20Colorado%E2%80%9D&description=>
>  Posted in conflict of interest laws <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=20>,
> election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The Voting
> Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60> | Comments Off
>  “Thanks, Citizens United, for This Campaign Finance Mess We’re In”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=37621>
> Posted on July 27, 2012 9:14 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=37621> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Adam Skaggs writes<http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/07/thanks-citizens-united-for-this-campaign-finance-mess-were-in/260389/>for
> *The Atlantic*.
>  [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=37621&title=â€œThanks,
> Citizens United, for This Campaign Finance Mess Weâ€™re Inâ€ &description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D37621&title=%E2%80%9CThanks%2C%20Citizens%20United%2C%20for%20This%20Campaign%20Finance%20Mess%20We%E2%80%99re%20In%E2%80%9D&description=>
>  Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> | Comments
> Off
>  “FEC Statement on Van Hollen v. FEC”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=37618>
> Posted on July 27, 2012 9:11 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=37618> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> FEC Press Release<http://www.fec.gov/press/press2012/20120727_VanHollen_v_FEC.shtml>
>
> On March 30, 2012, the United States District Court for the District of
> Columbia, in *Van Hollen v. FEC*, Civ. No. 11-0766 (D.D.C. Mar. 30,
> 2012), found that the Commission regulation at 11 CFR 104.20(c)(9) is
> invalid.  That regulation, which was adopted in 2007 and governed
> electioneering communications by corporations and labor organizations,
> required that their donors be disclosed only if their donations were “made
> for the purpose of furthering electioneering communications.”  The district
> court found that this limitation on disclosure contravened Congress’s
> intent and noted that the Commission’s pre-2007 regulation “did not add an
> intent requirement.”  *Van Hollen*, No. 11-0766, slip. op. at 25 n.8
> (D.D.C. Mar. 30, 2012).  On April 27, 2012, the district court vacated the
> regulation at 11 CFR 104.20(c)(9) and reinstated the Commission’s prior
> regulation at 104.20(c), which was promulgated on December 17, 2002 and was
> in effect until December 25, 2007.  *Van Hollen*, Civ. No. 11-0766
> (D.D.C. Apr. 27, 2012).
>
> Both the district court, in its April 27 ruling, and the United States
> Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, *Van Hollen*, No.
> 12-5117 (D.C. Cir. May 14, 2012), denied motions by defendant-intervenors
> Center for Individual Freedom and Hispanic Leadership Fund to stay the
> district court’s order pending appeal.<http://www.fec.gov/press/press2012/20120727_VanHollen_v_FEC.shtml#_ftn1>
> 1
>
> The Commission is providing this public statement outlining how it will
> comply with the district court’s opinion and order pending the appeal of
> the case:…
>
> :
>  [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=37618&title=â€œFEC
> Statement on Van Hollen v. FECâ€ &description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D37618&title=%E2%80%9CFEC%20Statement%20on%20Van%20Hollen%20v.%20FEC%E2%80%9D&description=>
>  Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, tax law
> and election law <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=22> | Comments Off
>  “Texas Senate race attracts $13 million in super PAC spending”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=37616>
> Posted on July 27, 2012 9:09 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=37616> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> iWatch<http://www.iwatchnews.org/2012/07/27/10321/texas-senate-race-attracts-13-million-super-pac-spending>:
> “Tuesday’s Republican runoff for U.S. Senate in Texas is the most expensive
> congressional race this election, thanks largely to super PACs supporting
> the underdog tea party candidate over the far-better funded favorite.”
>  [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=37616&title=â€œTexas
> Senate race attracts $13 million in super PAC spendingâ€ &description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D37616&title=%E2%80%9CTexas%20Senate%20race%20attracts%20%2413%20million%20in%20super%20PAC%20spending%E2%80%9D&description=>
>  Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> | Comments
> Off
>  “Obama raises millions for 2012 campaign within spitting distance of
> White House” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=37614>
> Posted on July 27, 2012 9:08 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=37614> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> WaPo reports<http://www.washingtonpost.com/obama-raises-millions-for-2012-campaign-within-spitting-distance-of-white-house/2012/07/26/gJQAbkdeBX_story.html>
> .
>  [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=37614&title=â€œObama
> raises millions for 2012 campaign within spitting distance of White Houseâ€
> &description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D37614&title=%E2%80%9CObama%20raises%20millions%20for%202012%20campaign%20within%20spitting%20distance%20of%20White%20House%E2%80%9D&description=>
>  Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> | Comments
> Off
>  “Kris Kobach Credits ACORN Hysteria With GOP-Led Voter ID Renaissance
> (VIDEO)” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=37609>
> Posted on July 26, 2012 4:03 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=37609> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> TPM reports<http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/07/kris_kobach_credits_acorn_coverage_for_voter_id_push_video.php>
> .
>  [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=37609&title=â€œKris
> Kobach Credits ACORN Hysteria With GOP-Led Voter ID Renaissance (VIDEO)â€
> &description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D37609&title=%E2%80%9CKris%20Kobach%20Credits%20ACORN%20Hysteria%20With%20GOP-Led%20Voter%20ID%20Renaissance%20%28VIDEO%29%E2%80%9D&description=>
>  Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, fraudulent
> fraud squad <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=8>, The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
> | Comments Off
>  The Problem of Pollworker Discretion in Implementing PA’s Voter ID Law<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=37605>
> Posted on July 26, 2012 3:13 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=37605> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> One of the themes of The Voting Wars<http://www.amazon.com/Voting-Wars-Florida-Election-Meltdown/dp/0300182031/ref=sr_1_cc_2?s=aps&ie=UTF8&qid=1329286945&sr=1-2-catcorr>is that it is dangerous when we give people charged with running our
> election lots of discretion for interpreting rules for who can vote, etc.,
> because inevitably subconscious biases and ideas can sneak in.  I talk
> about that a lot when it comes to my recounting of the Florida 2000
> debacle.  It happened when county canvassing boards were deciding whether
> or not to count votes for Gore, Bush or neither. It happened when local
> election officials decided whether or not to use a faulty voter purge list
> prepared by the state by DBT.  (It also happened when the Republican
> Secretary of State, Katherine Harris, and the Democratic Attorney General,
> Bob Butterworth, gave conflicting interpretations of Florida statutory
> provisions governing the election protest period.)
>
> I was reminded of that when I read this portion of the ACLU-PA’s recap
> <http://www.aclupa.blogspot.com/2012/07/voter-id-day-two-statistically-speaking.html>of
> today’s testimony in the voter id trial, raising an issue wholly apart from
> the question of how many people don’t have the right i.d. or the right
> documents to get that i.d.:
>
> A buzz-word of the day, “substantial conformity” is the term PA’s voter ID
> statue applies to the similarity between a voter’s name on his or her photo
> ID and the name that appears on state election rolls. The legislature
> included no definition nor criteria for this term, and Ms. Oyler testified
> that, while the Department of State may issue recommendations to the county
> boards of election, those recommendations would be non-binding. Ultimately,
> the question of substantial conformity, and the decision as to whether two
> names match – say, for example “James Smith” and “Jim Smith” – will be left
> to those individual boards of elections, and ultimately to the individual
> poll workers.
> Leaving such a subjective determination in the hands of so many
> individuals raises significant questions. Substantive differences in name
> are not uncommon – particularly for recently-married women, who are likely
> to have obtained a new driver’s license, but highly unlikely to have
> updated the election rolls. Voters whose ID is rejected would have the
> opportunity to cast a provisional ballot, but as they will have only six
> days to order and obtain a corrected ID card, the odds that their vote will
> be counted are slim. In his testimony, Baretto remarked that any voter who
> has an ID with a name that is not an exact match with his or her name on
> the voting rolls is “at risk” come election day.
> A similar problem confronts the voter ID law’s provision for “indigent”
> voters. According to the law, voters who are “indigent” are permitted to
> bypass ID requirements and instead complete a special form, which must be
> submitted to the county board of elections to accompany their provisional
> ballot. Once again, however, lawmakers failed to define “indigent,” and so
> it is left to the county boards of elections, and ultimately to the
> discretion of individual poll workers, to decide who is indigent and who is
> not – as well as to decide whether to provide the indigent voter form
> on-site at the polling place, or to require the voter to visit county
> election headquarters to obtain the form.
> In short, under PA’s new laws you’re not only handing that poll worker
> your photo ID card – you’re also handing over unprecedented authority over
> whether or not you can vote. Try to smile.
>
>  This alone raises some serious federal constitutional questions about
> vagueness, due process, and impermissible discretion, issues which were not
> addressed in the U.S. supreme Court’s *Crawford* case.
>  [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=37605&title=The
> Problem of Pollworker Discretion in Implementing PAâ€™s Voter ID
> Law&description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D37605&title=The%20Problem%20of%20Pollworker%20Discretion%20in%20Implementing%20PA%E2%80%99s%20Voter%20ID%20Law&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>
> | Comments Off
>  “Embattled postal service faces challenge on Election Day”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=37602>
> Posted on July 26, 2012 2:38 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=37602> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> NBC News reports<http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/07/26/12973525-embattled-postal-service-faces-challenge-on-election-day#.UBG4QEJh9rw.twitter>
> .
>  [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=37602&title=â€œEmbattled
> postal service faces challenge on Election Dayâ€ &description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D37602&title=%E2%80%9CEmbattled%20postal%20service%20faces%20challenge%20on%20Election%20Day%E2%80%9D&description=>
>  Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18> | Comments
> Off
>  “Electoral College tie possible in Obama-Romney race”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=37599>
> Posted on July 26, 2012 2:29 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=37599> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> CNN reports<http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/26/politics/electoral-college-tie/index.html>
> .
>  [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=37599&title=â€œElectoral
> College tie possible in Obama-Romney raceâ€ &description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D37599&title=%E2%80%9CElectoral%20College%20tie%20possible%20in%20Obama-Romney%20race%E2%80%9D&description=>
>  Posted in campaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>, electoral
> college <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=44> | Comments Off
>  “Gessler’s proposed changes to election rules draw heated objections;
> Democratic legislators say Gessler has gone too far, is writing law”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=37595>
> Posted on July 26, 2012 2:25 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=37595> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Colorado Independent<http://coloradoindependent.com/124016/gesslers-proposed-changes-to-election-rules-draw-heated-objections>:
> “Over the course of a five-hour rulemaking hearing Monday, Colorado
> Secretary of State Scott Gessler probably got the message that a lot of
> people are unhappy with proposed rules that would stop county clerks from
> mailing ballots to inactive voters in some elections, change the way
> canvass boards are selected and give county clerks more power to determine
> how much access election watchers have.”
>  [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=37595&title=â€œGesslerâ€™s
> proposed changes to election rules draw heated objections; Democratic
> legislators say Gessler has gone too far, is writing lawâ€ &description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D37595&title=%E2%80%9CGessler%E2%80%99s%20proposed%20changes%20to%20election%20rules%20draw%20heated%20objections%3B%20Democratic%20legislators%20say%20Gessler%20has%20gone%20too%20far%2C%20is%20writing%20law%E2%80%9D&description=>
>  Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The
> Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60> | Comments Off
>  Bundlers <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=37592>
> Posted on July 26, 2012 2:23 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=37592> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Public Citizen Releases Updated ‘White House For Sale’ Website to Track
> Bundlers <http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/pressroomredirect.cfm?ID=3676>
>
> More Romney Bundlers are Identified
> <http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2012/07/more-romney-bundlers-are-identified.html>(Open
> Secrets)
>
> Clinton Allies, Politicians, Among Obama’s New Bundlers<http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2012/07/obama-campaign-releases-new-bundler.html>(Open Secrets)
>  [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=37592&title=Bundlers&description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D37592&title=Bundlers&description=>
>  Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> | Comments
> Off
>  “‘The Debate is Over’: FL’s ‘Non-Citizen’ Voter Purge Has Been a
> Spectacular, Disenfranchising Failure”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=37590>
> Posted on July 26, 2012 2:20 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=37590> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> If you can get past the hyperbole and breathlessness, this Brad Blog post<http://www.bradblog.com/?p=9412>offers some important factual correctives (many from sunshine act requests)
> about the Florida voter purge.  Bottom line: very few non-citizens removed
> from rolls and very little proof of non-citizen voting in Florida, despite
> claims <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=37015> to the contrary.
>  [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=37590&title=â€œâ€˜The
> Debate is Overâ€™: FLâ€™s â€˜Non-Citizenâ€™ Voter Purge Has Been a
> Spectacular, Disenfranchising Failureâ€ &description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D37590&title=%E2%80%9C%E2%80%98The%20Debate%20is%20Over%E2%80%99%3A%20FL%E2%80%99s%20%E2%80%98Non-Citizen%E2%80%99%20Voter%20Purge%20Has%20Been%20a%20Spectacular%2C%20Disenfranchising%20Failure%E2%80%9D&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>,
> voter registration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=37> | Comments Off
>  “Scalia Defends ‘Citizens United,’ Arizona Immigration Decision”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=37588>
> Posted on July 26, 2012 2:13 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=37588> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Tony Mauro reports<http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2012/07/scalia-defends-citizens-united-arizona-immigration-decision.html>for BLT.
>  [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=37588&title=â€œScalia
> Defends â€˜Citizens United,â€™ Arizona Immigration Decisionâ€ &description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D37588&title=%E2%80%9CScalia%20Defends%20%E2%80%98Citizens%20United%2C%E2%80%99%20Arizona%20Immigration%20Decision%E2%80%9D&description=>
>  Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, Supreme
> Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29> | Comments Off
>  “State ballot measures — the name game”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=37586>
> Posted on July 26, 2012 2:13 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=37586> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Bill McGeveran and Myron Orfield have written this oped<http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentaries/163781496.html?refer=y>in the
> *Star-Tribune*.
>  [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=37586&title=â€œState
> ballot measures â€” the name gameâ€ &description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D37586&title=%E2%80%9CState%20ballot%20measures%20%E2%80%94%20the%20name%20game%E2%80%9D&description=>
>  Posted in direct democracy <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=62>, election
> administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18> | Comments Off
>  “Washington State partners with Microsoft and Facebook; Facebook voter
> registration app set to launch soon” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=37583>
> Posted on July 26, 2012 10:29 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=37583> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> That’s the lead story in this week’s Electionline Weekly.<http://www.electionline.org/index.php/electionline-weekly>
>  [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=37583&title=â€œWashington
> State partners with Microsoft and Facebook; Facebook voter registration app
> set to launch soonâ€ &description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D37583&title=%E2%80%9CWashington%20State%20partners%20with%20Microsoft%20and%20Facebook%3B%20Facebook%20voter%20registration%20app%20set%20to%20launch%20soon%E2%80%9D&description=>
>  Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, voter
> registration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=37>, voting technology<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=40>
> | Comments Off
>  “Pennsylvania Governor Can’t Recall Requirements Of Voter ID Law He
> Signed” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=37580>
> Posted on July 26, 2012 10:22 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=37580> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> TPM reports<http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/07/pennsylvania_voter_id_law_tom_corbett.php?ref=fpnewsfeed>
> .
>  [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=37580&title=â€œPennsylvania
> Governor Canâ€™t Recall Requirements Of Voter ID Law He Signedâ€
> &description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D37580&title=%E2%80%9CPennsylvania%20Governor%20Can%E2%80%99t%20Recall%20Requirements%20Of%20Voter%20ID%20Law%20He%20Signed%E2%80%9D&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>
> | 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 92697-8000949.824.3072 - office949.824.0495 - faxrhasen at law.uci.eduhttp://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.htmlhttp://electionlawblog.org
> Pre-order The Voting Wars: http://amzn.to/y22ZTvwww.thevotingwars.com
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
>
> --
> Rick Hasen
> Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
> UC Irvine School of Law
> 401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
> Irvine, CA 92697-8000949.824.3072 - office949.824.0495 - faxrhasen at law.uci.eduhttp://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.htmlhttp://electionlawblog.org
> Pre-order The Voting Wars: http://amzn.to/y22ZTvwww.thevotingwars.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20120729/a5f1b221/attachment.html>