[EL] ELB News and Commentary 6/12/12
Rick Hasen
rhasen at law.uci.edu
Tue Jun 12 08:38:46 PDT 2012
"Federal judge will not stop Tuesday's S.C. primary"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=35587>
Posted on June 12, 2012 8:36 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=35587> by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
The latest
<http://www.independentmail.com/news/2012/jun/11/lawsuit-filed-stop-sc-primary/>from
South Carolina.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D35587&title=%E2%80%9CFederal%20judge%20will%20not%20stop%20Tuesday%E2%80%99s%20S.C.%20primary%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>, Voting Rights
Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15> | Comments Off
"Citizens United: A Conversation with Bob Bauer '76 and Trevor
Potter '82? <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=35584>
Posted on June 12, 2012 8:35 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=35584> by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
U.Va.
<http://www.law.virginia.edu/html/alumni/uvalawyer/spr12/conversation.htm>:
"/UVA Lawyer/ first profiled Bob Bauer and Trevor Potter in a Spring '09
story about their experiences as general counsel for the Obama and
McCain presidential campaigns, respectively. Today, both remain heavily
involved in the national political scene, Bauer again as general counsel
of the president's re-election campaign, and Potter as head of Caplin &
Drysdale's political law practice and the founding president and general
counsel of the Campaign Legal Center, a Washington, D.C. based nonprofit
focused on campaign finance issues in the courts and before the Federal
Election Commission. With the /Citizens United/ decision bringing
election law back into the news, we joined them in Bauer's office at
Perkins Coie in Washington to discuss the decision. The following is the
lightly-edited transcript of that conversation."
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D35584&title=%E2%80%9CCitizens%20United%3A%20A%20Conversation%20with%20Bob%20Bauer%20%E2%80%9976%20and%20Trevor%20Potter%20%E2%80%9982%E2%80%B3&description=>
Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> |
Comments Off
"Obama Sees Sharpest Drop In Donors From Western States"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=35581>
Posted on June 12, 2012 8:31 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=35581> by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Interesting Buzzfeed report.
<http://www.buzzfeed.com/rebeccaelliott/obama-sees-sharpest-drop-in-donors-from-western-st>
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D35581&title=%E2%80%9CObama%20Sees%20Sharpest%20Drop%20In%20Donors%20From%20Western%20States%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,
campaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59> | Comments Off
"Democracy 21 Refutes Attacks by Chamber of Commerce and NRA on
Campaign Finance Disclosure; Urges Senators to Vote for Cloture and
Pass the DISCLOSE Act of 2012? <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=35579>
Posted on June 12, 2012 8:30 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=35579> by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
The following press release arrived via email:
In a letter sent to all Senators today
<http://www.democracy21.org/vertical/sites/%7B3D66FAFE-2697-446F-BB39-85FBBBA57812%7D/uploads/Senate_letter_on_DISCLOSE_2012_Act_June_2012.pdf>,
Democracy 21 President Fred Wertheimer refuted the attacks made by
the Chamber of Commerce and the NRA on campaign finance disclosure.
The letter urges Senators to support S.2219, the DISCLOSE Act of
2012, by voting for cloture on the legislation and for its passage.
The letter to Senators states:
If you have particular concerns about S.2219, we urge you to discuss
possible changes in the bill with the sponsor of the legislation,
rather than voting to block the Senate from even considering S.2219.
According to the letter:
Recently the Chamber of Commerce and the National Rifle Association
sent letters to the Senate criticizing S. 2219 and expressing their
opposition to the bill.
We strongly disagree with their criticisms and their attacks on
campaign finance disclosure. Although none of the specific
objections stated by either the Chamber or the NRA is valid, it is
important to recognize that the real objection of these groups is to
/any/ disclosure of donors whose funds they are using to finance
their campaign-related expenditures.
The Chamber and the NRA simply do not believe that voters are
entitled to know the identities of the significant donors financing
their campaign activities.
The position of the Chamber and the NRA is in direct contradiction
to a fundamental principle of campaign finance laws: citizens have a
right to know who is giving and spending money to influence their
votes. This principle has governed the campaign finance laws and
Supreme Court decisions upholding the constitutionality of
disclosure laws for decades.
The letter points out that the DISCLOSE Act is fully consistent with
the /Citizens United/ decision and other Supreme Court decisions
upholding campaign finance disclosure laws.
The letter states:
The Supreme Court in /Citizens United/, by an 8-1 majority,
conclusively rejected claims that disclosure of campaign spending is
inconsistent with the First Amendment.
The Court concluded that disclaimer and disclosure requirements are
constitutional because they serve important governmental interests
in "providing the electorate with information about the sources of
election-related spending" in order to help citizens "make informed
choices in the political marketplace." The Court specifically noted
that it had earlier upheld disclosure laws to address the problem
that "independent groups were running election-related
advertisements while hiding behind dubious and misleading names."
The letter also notes:
The /Citizens United/ decision carries forward the Supreme Court's
longstanding support for disclosure laws. In the landmark decision
of /Buckley v. Valeo /(1976), the Court upheld the constitutionality
of campaign finance disclosure laws, stating:
[D]isclosure requirements deter actual corruption and avoid the
appearance of corruption by exposing large contributions and
expenditures to the light of publicity. This exposure may discourage
those who would use money for improper purposes either before or
after the election. A public armed with information about a
candidate's most generous supporters is better able to detect any
post-election special favors that may be given in return. 79 And, as
we recognized in Burroughs v. United States, 290 U.S., at 548,
Congress could reasonably conclude that full disclosure during an
election campaign tends "to prevent the corrupt use of money to
affect elections." In enacting these requirements it may have been
mindful of Mr. Justice Brandeis' advice: "Publicity is justly
commended as a remedy for social and industrial diseases. Sunlight
is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most
efficient policeman."
The letter points out that the Supreme Court has rejected the
argument that disclosure requirements "impermissibly 'chill'
speech." According to the letter:
The Supreme Court, however, has rejected this general argument and
has held that a disclosure provision would /only /be
unconstitutional if a specific organization could establish "a
reasonable probability that the group's members could face threats,
harassment, or reprisals if their names were disclosed."
Furthermore, the Supreme Court has said that even where a specific
group could show such a "reasonable probability," the remedy would
be to exempt that specific organization from disclosure; not to
strike down the disclosure requirements for all groups.
Disclosure requirements are not invalid because of some general and
theoretical concern about "chilling" speech.
Comments and criticism about the campaign finance activities of
donors and spenders is precisely the kind of public "accountability"
envisioned by campaign finance disclosure laws. The notion that
groups may come under public scrutiny and criticisms for their
campaign activities does not constitute the kind of "threats,
harassment, or reprisals" viewed by the Supreme Court as a
sufficient basis to exempt a donor or spender from campaign finance
disclosure requirements.
The letter also notes:
Contrary to the claims of opponents, S.2219 is not "aimed" at the
suppression of corporate speech and does not prevent any
organization from speaking. The disclosure provisions of the
legislation apply across-the-board to any group spending more than
$10,000 on campaign-related expenditures, regardless of whether
these expenditures are made by corporations, labor organizations,
conservative groups, progressive groups, pro-Democratic groups or
pro-Republican groups.
The letter explains that the $10,000 threshold for disclosure of
donors to groups making campaign-related expenditures "is designed
to narrowly tailor the disclosure requirements for all groups which
are making campaign-related expenditures and which have a major
purpose /other than to influence elections/."
According to the letter:
By requiring disclosure only of substantial donors to such groups,
the $10,000 threshold balances the interests that such groups have
in privacy for their donors with the public's interest in knowing
the significant donors financing campaign activities.
The letter explains that opponents of the legislation "ignore
important provisions of the bill that give organizations and donors
the flexibility to limit the disclosure of a donor." The letter states:
For example, the bill permits an organization to set up a separate
bank account to raise money for campaign-related expenditures and to
make such expenditures only from that account. If an organization
elects that option and makes its campaign-related expenditures from
the separate account, only the donors of $10,000 or more to that
account are required to be disclosed.
This allows /any donor /who is does not want his or her money to be
used for campaign-related expenditures to remain undisclosed.
Similarly, even if the organization does not set up a separate bank
account for campaign-related spending, the legislation permits
donors who would otherwise be disclosed to designate that their
contributions cannot be used for campaign-related expenditures and
thereby to remain undisclosed.
The letter concludes:
In short, the Chamber of Commerce and the NRA do not have valid
objections to S.2219 -- they are simply opposed to citizens knowing
the significant donors whose funds they are using to finance
campaign-related expenditures.
This position is indefensible. It is also in direct conflict with
decades of established national policy and with Supreme Court
precedents that have repeatedly reaffirmed the importance and
constitutionality of campaign finance disclosure requirements.
Democracy 21 strongly supports the DISCLOSE Act of 2012 and urges
you to vote for cloture on S.2219 and for passage of the legislation.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D35579&title=%E2%80%9CDemocracy%2021%20Refutes%20Attacks%20by%20Chamber%20of%20Commerce%20and%20NRA%20on%20Campaign%20Finance%20Disclosure%3B%20Urges%20Senators%20to%20Vote%20for%20Cloture%20and%20Pass%20the%20DISCLOSE%20Act%20of%202012%E2%80%B3&description=>
Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> |
Comments Off
"Whose House? Whose Rules? Controversy Over Sign at Church Polling
Place Leads New Hanover County, NC to Set Guidelines"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=35576>
Posted on June 12, 2012 8:24 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=35576> by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
A ChapinBlog
<http://blog.lib.umn.edu/cspg/electionacademy/2012/06/whose_house_whose_rules_contro.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+HHHElections+%28The+Election+Aacdemy%29>.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D35576&title=%E2%80%9CWhose%20House%3F%20Whose%20Rules%3F%20Controversy%20Over%20Sign%20at%20Church%20Polling%20Place%20Leads%20New%20Hanover%20County%2C%20NC%20to%20Set%20Guidelines%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18> |
Comments Off
"FEC Approves Use of Text Messaging to Donate to Campaigns"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=35573>
Posted on June 12, 2012 8:20 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=35573> by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Roll Call reports
<http://www.rollcall.com/news/fec_approves_use_of_text_messaging_to_donate_to_campaigns-215279-1.html>.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D35573&title=%E2%80%9CFEC%20Approves%20Use%20of%20Text%20Messaging%20to%20Donate%20to%20Campaigns%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> |
Comments Off
"Ruling the Future: A clever way to force Congress to come up with
better rules for itself, starting with the filibuster."
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=35570>
Posted on June 12, 2012 8:16 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=35570> by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Michael McConnell's contribution
<http://hive.slate.com/hive/how-can-we-fix-constitution/article/ruling-the-future>
to Slate's "Hive
<http://hive.slate.com/hive/how-can-we-fix-constitution>" on ways to fix
the constitution.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D35570&title=%E2%80%9CRuling%20the%20Future%3A%20A%20clever%20way%20to%20force%20Congress%20to%20come%20up%20with%20better%20rules%20for%20itself%2C%20starting%20with%20the%20filibuster.%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in Uncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1> | Comments Off
"Angus King makes a last stand for moderation in Maine Senate race"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=35567>
Posted on June 12, 2012 7:41 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=35567> by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
WaPo
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/angus-king-makes-a-last-stand-for-moderation-in-maine-senate-race/2012/06/11/gJQA4LImUV_story.html?hpid=z1>:
" Angus King <http://angus2012.com/>, a popular former Maine governor
and the favorite to become the state's next U.S. senator, thinks the way
to win an election in 2012 is to stake out the middle ground, crusade
against partisanship and present himself as a devout independent."
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D35567&title=%E2%80%9CAngus%20King%20makes%20a%20last%20stand%20for%20moderation%20in%20Maine%20Senate%20race%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>, political
polarization <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=68> | Comments Off
Will Romney Fight to Keep Gary Johnson Off the Ballot in Michigan?
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=35565>
Posted on June 12, 2012 7:40 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=35565> by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Interesting TPM report
<http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/06/libertarians-say-republicans-afraid-to-face-gary-johnson-in-mitt-romneys-home-state-3.php>.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D35565&title=Will%20Romney%20Fight%20to%20Keep%20Gary%20Johnson%20Off%20the%20Ballot%20in%20Michigan%3F&description=>
Posted in ballot access <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=46>, third
parties <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=47> | Comments Off
"Hearing Resumes in Voter Registration Group's Suit"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=35562>
Posted on June 12, 2012 7:37 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=35562> by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
News
<http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/politics/Hearing-Resumes-in-Voter-Registration-Groups-Suit-158563305.html>
from Texas.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D35562&title=%E2%80%9CHearing%20Resumes%20in%20Voter%20Registration%20Group%E2%80%99s%20Suit%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in voter registration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=37> |
Comments Off
"Florida's voter purge sparks lawsuits between state and feds"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=35559>
Posted on June 12, 2012 7:34 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=35559> by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
The /Miami Herald /reports
<http://www.sacbee.com/2012/06/12/4555364/floridas-voter-purge-sparks-lawsuits.html>.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D35559&title=%E2%80%9CFlorida%E2%80%99s%20voter%20purge%20sparks%20lawsuits%20between%20state%20and%20feds%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in Department of Justice <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=26>,
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
"FEC: Campaigns can raise money via text message"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=35555>
Posted on June 11, 2012 8:24 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=35555> by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Politico reports <http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77302.html>.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D35555&title=%E2%80%9CFEC%3A%20Campaigns%20can%20raise%20money%20via%20text%20message%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> |
Comments Off
"DOJ To Sue Over Florida's Voter Purge"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=35552>
Posted on June 11, 2012 3:12 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=35552> by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
TPM
<http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/06/doj_to_sue_over_floridas_voter_purge.php>:
"The Justice Department's Civil Rights Division will sue the state of
Florida for purging voters from its rolls in violation of federal law,
Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez said in a letter to Florida
Secretary of State Ken Detzner Monday."
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D35552&title=%E2%80%9CDOJ%20To%20Sue%20Over%20Florida%E2%80%99s%20Voter%20Purge%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in Department of Justice <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=26>,
election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The Voting
Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>, voter registration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=37> | Comments Off
Teachout-Tillman <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=35549>
Posted on June 11, 2012 3:08 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=35549> by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Zephyr Teachout's Gifts, Offices, and Corruption
<http://www.law.northwestern.edu/lawreview/colloquy/2012/9/index.html>
responds to Seth Barrett Tillman's /Citizen's United/ and the Scope of
Professor Teachout's Anti-Corruption Principle
<http://www.law.northwestern.edu/lawreview/colloquy/2012/7/index.html>.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D35549&title=Teachout-Tillman&description=>
Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> |
Comments Off
"Super PAC Mania" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=35544>
Posted on June 11, 2012 2:18 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=35544> by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Bob Barnes writes
<http://www.law.columbia.edu/magazine/621141/super-pac-mania> for the
Columbia Law School magazine.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D35544&title=%E2%80%9CSuper%20PAC%20Mania%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> |
Comments Off
"The Final Frontier: A Montana case gives campaign reformers their
best shot at undermining the Supreme Court's Citizens United
decision. But they shouldn't get their hopes up. "
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=35541>
Posted on June 11, 2012 11:11 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=35541>
by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Alex Roarty has written this article
<http://nationaljournal.com/magazine/federalism-be-damned-20120607> for
National Journal.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D35541&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20Final%20Frontier%3A%20A%20Montana%20case%20gives%20campaign%20reformers%20their%20best%20shot%20at%20undermining%20the%20Supreme%20Court%E2%80%99s%20Citizens%20United%20decision.%20But%20they%20shouldn%E2%80%99t%20get%20their%20hopes%20up.%20%E2%80%9C&description=>
Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> |
Comments Off
"Mystery of Citizens United Sequel Is Format, Not Ending"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=35538>
Posted on June 11, 2012 10:25 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=35538>
by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Adm Liptak's latest
<http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/12/us/in-citizens-united-ii-how-justices-rule-may-be-an-issue-itself.html>.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D35538&title=%E2%80%9CMystery%20of%20Citizens%20United%20Sequel%20Is%20Format%2C%20Not%20Ending%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in Bush v. Gore reflections <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=5>,
Supreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29> | Comments Off
"California's election reform flops"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=35535>
Posted on June 11, 2012 8:41 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=35535> by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Joe Mathews
<http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-mathews-top-two-california-election-20120610,0,6856787.story>
wants California to be more like Wisconsin in its politics. Really.
And anyone who thought top two and citizen redistricting would
fundamentally transform California had expectations which were way too high.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D35535&title=%E2%80%9CCalifornia%E2%80%99s%20election%20reform%20flops%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in citizen commissions <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=7>,
political parties <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=25>, political
polarization <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=68>, primaries
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=32>, redistricting
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6> | 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
http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html
http://electionlawblog.org
Pre-order The Voting Wars: http://amzn.to/y22ZTv
www.thevotingwars.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120612/916e3d23/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1520 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120612/916e3d23/attachment.png>
View list directory