[EL] Fwd: An Aetna Experiment
Mark Schmitt
schmitt.mark at gmail.com
Sat Jun 16 14:20:03 PDT 2012
Is "motive" the only standard you're going to use in granting your
exemption? Almost by definition, an administration would have a motive
to retaliate against political opponents.
That's very different from actually doing it, though.
On 6/16/2012 10:17 AM, Steve Hoersting wrote:
> Right -- I do the best I can when dashing off notes to the list. (In
> fact, I am pretty sure I said "elude" when I meant "allude" yesterday,
> and "counsel" when I meant "council." So I do the best I can).
>
> To be perfectly clear I should have said Aetna is associating with a
> group that will advocate the election of candidates interested in
> implementing, restoring or preserving medical markets and free
> enterprise -- and advocate the defeat of others.
>
> And to your second question, the answer is Yes, absolutely, there is a
> reason that should be treated differently.
>
> Compelled disclosure of contributions to candidates invokes the
> anti-corruption interest as well as the informational interest.
> Compelled disclosure of contributions to organizations that will speak
> independently can -- as a matter of law, pending the Montana
> litigation -- only invoke the informational interest.
>
> So, where the pressure on contributors is immense, the /interest/ in
> public disclosure of independent speech, not preventing corruption, is
> all that is offered to trump the /right/ to actually engage in
> independent, non-corrupting speech.
>
> By the way, while I am thinking of it, I should mention this: I do
> not believe under my proposed rubric of businessmen seeking the
> /Social Workers/ exemption that the exemption should apply forever to
> that class of businessmen based on the characteristics of the
> businessmen themselves. The redundancy in my explanation is to make a
> distinction: This approach would be opposite the dynamic involved in
> grants of the exemption to groups like the SWP, who claim the
> exemption based on their standing relative to the general community.
> Rather, under my proposal, the businessmen would claim the exemption
> relative to a candidate they want to oppose with independent
> communications (or a group of candidates they want to oppose) based on
> that candidate's demonstrated motive to retaliate and the motive of
> his agents or administration.
>
> In other words, while the /Socialist Workers/ exemption will not
> likely soon sunset for socialists any time soon -- though I am aware
> the FEC renews it periodically -- the exemption would sunset and have
> to be renewed every election cycle for businessmen who generally are
> in the mainstream of society but claim the exemption as needed to
> protect the right to participate in an election against candidates who
> have solidly demonstrated a motive to retaliate.
>
> Good weekend,
>
> Steve
>
> On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Mark Schmitt <schmitt.mark at gmail.com
> <mailto:schmitt.mark at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Right, but the original claim was that Aetna was expressing its
> support for "medical markets" and "free enterprise."
>
> In fact, they are simply using their resources to intervene in an
> election. Is there any reason that should be treated differently,
> for purposes of disclosure, than other electoral interventions,
> such as contributing directly to a campaign?
>
>
>
> On 6/15/2012 6:40 PM, Smith, Brad wrote:
>> And of course, trying to persuade voters to "elect friendly
>> legislators" has nothing to do with expressing political views.
>>
>> /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 <tel:614.236.6317>/
>>
>> /http://law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx/
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *From:* law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
>> <mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>
>> [law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
>> <mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>] on behalf
>> of Mark Schmitt [schmitt.mark at gmail.com
>> <mailto:schmitt.mark at gmail.com>]
>> *Sent:* Friday, June 15, 2012 5:31 PM
>> *To:* law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>> <mailto:law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
>> *Subject:* Re: [EL] Fwd: An Aetna Experiment
>>
>> Gingrich's views changed when his interests changed. His
>> interests changed when he switched from being a lobbyist for the
>> health insurance industry to being a Republican candidate for
>> president. And I didn't say Aetna's best outcome would be a
>> mandate. It would be a mandate with no other regulation -- a
>> terrible policy and the opposite of public opinion. The parts of
>> the health care law they want to get ride of are not the mandate.
>>
>> I doubt is so unsophisticated as to fall for something just
>> because it "looks enticing." They have, you know, computers and
>> actuaries and stuff.
>>
>> But ultimately, they believe that their best shot at having the
>> influence that will get them closest to the policy results they
>> want is to elect more Republicans. I keep coming back to this
>> because I want to emphasize that these donations aren't about the
>> corporation "expressing its views." They are about electing
>> friendly legislators.
>>
>>
>> On 6/15/2012 5:06 PM, Steve Hoersting wrote:
>>> Aetna's views might change for the reasons Newt Gingrich's
>>> views (may) have changed. An individual mandate looks enticing,
>>> until one begins fully to understand what the Progressives will
>>> do with it, and at what cost. (I don't just mean dollars).
>>>
>>> Don't be so sure "Aetna's ideal outcome, in terms of interests,
>>> would be a mandate." Aetna, too, may be learning. Indeed, I'm
>>> betting there was a time GM's former CEO Rick Wagoner might have
>>> thought a ten-year tax break for General Motors would be
>>> /nirvana/ -- "an ideal outcome, in terms of interests."
>>> Guarantee you he doesn't think so any longer.
>>>
>>> I am glad to see you are willing to watch the experiment. I too
>>> will watch. Of course, as Bill suggests, it may be hard to
>>> gauge what concessions Aetna may already be making behind the
>>> scenes. But that won't keep us from watching. If you discover
>>> anything interesting, Mark, please let us know.
>>>
>>> Steve
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 4:54 PM, Mark Schmitt
>>> <schmitt.mark at gmail.com <mailto:schmitt.mark at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Why would Aetna's views change? It's interests haven't
>>> changed. And in answer to Bill, it's supported the mandate
>>> through Republican and Democratic administrations and
>>> Congresses, so it's not likely doing it just to curry favor.
>>>
>>> Aetna's ideal outcome, in terms of its interests, would be a
>>> mandate, which delivers customers, mostly healthy low-cost
>>> ones, without any insurance regulation, so they could
>>> continue to screen out the less healthy, higher-cost
>>> applicants. Of course, that's the very worst combination by
>>> any interpretation of the public interest. (People who
>>> really need insurance still wouldn't get it and would wind
>>> up in super-expensive high-risk pools, or uncompensated
>>> care, and the whole thing would be staggeringly expensive.)
>>>
>>> I'm happy to treat the revelation of Aetna's political
>>> contributions as an experiment in political retaliation.
>>> It's unlikely that a consumer boycott would follow, since
>>> most Aetna customers (I'm one) aren't choosing to buy from
>>> them directly, the cost of shifting is high, and most other
>>> large insurers take a similar position (since they have
>>> similar interests). And because the health reform /is /a
>>> market-based program, administrators at HHS don't have a lot
>>> of room to randomly punish large insurers for their
>>> political involvement, since they desperately need those
>>> insurers to implement the program. But let's see where the
>>> experiment stands in a year or two. And let's also see
>>> whether Aetna's influence in Congress helped it get closer
>>> to the result most in its interests.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 6/15/2012 12:52 PM, Steve Hoersting wrote:
>>>> Mark,
>>>>
>>>> First let me say, I would not be at all surprised if
>>>> Aetna's views have evolved or changed in the past decade.
>>>> To the extent those views have not changed, perhaps Aetna
>>>> would, on a balance of factors, be willing to support
>>>> candidates who would repeal a law containing an individual
>>>> mandate in its entirety for fear of keeping a law that
>>>> contains, say, an IPAB. I don't know the particulars of
>>>> Aetna's calculation.
>>>>
>>>> What I do know is that the Chamber's ads will be
>>>> independent of the candidates it supports and will be
>>>> non-corrupting as a matter of law. (We will soon see if
>>>> that legal proposition is burnished or dented in the
>>>> Montana litigation currently before the SCOTUS). Therefore,
>>>> all that is being further by this compelled disclosure is
>>>> not anti-corruption, but only the so-called "informational
>>>> interest."
>>>>
>>>> My point and question, however, is not yours, which, if I
>>>> can summarize it, is tied to the informational interest as
>>>> follows: Won't it be interesting to see if Aetna backs
>>>> someone who will repeal an individual mandate?"
>>>>
>>>> Rather, my point is this: Will this recent disclosure of
>>>> $7.8M bring the heat down on Aetna? That's the experiment I
>>>> want to see run. I don't flatter myself enough to think my
>>>> mentioning the potential of retaliation against Aetna here
>>>> will constrain anyone from retaliating against Aetna. So,
>>>> the integrity of the experiment survives, and we shall see.
>>>>
>>>> But I will flatter myself -- flatter my spotting of this
>>>> issue some time ago, anyway -- to this degree. Senator
>>>> McConnell's speech on government-on-citizen retribution at
>>>> AEI, and a related speech at CPAC, show that my theory --
>>>> that we have now reached in America a state of affairs
>>>> where Capitalists Need /Socialist Workers/
>>>> <http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/266623/when-capitalists-need-socialist-workers-stephen-m-hoersting>
>>>> -- will have its day.
>>>>
>>>> All the best,
>>>>
>>>> Steve Hoersting
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 12:22 PM, Mark Schmitt
>>>> <schmitt.mark at gmail.com <mailto:schmitt.mark at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> We already know Aetna's position on health reform, from
>>>> it's actual /speech/ on the issue, which is different
>>>> from the contributions it makes to influence elections.
>>>> Aetna's position on health reform, going back a decade,
>>>> has been that it supports an individual mandate, but
>>>> opposes other insurance regulations.
>>>> (http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/27/3/667.full)
>>>>
>>>> Aetna's contributions to Republican candidates through
>>>> these electoral committees will likely fund a message
>>>> that, if it talks about health reform at all, will take
>>>> the opposite position, attacking the mandate while
>>>> promising to retain some of the more popular insurance
>>>> regulations, such as guaranteed issue. Why? Because
>>>> that's simply a more effective message for electing
>>>> Republicans.
>>>>
>>>> That contradiction is interesting to know about. And if
>>>> the Supreme Court overturns the whole health law, and
>>>> the Romney administration somehow neglects to fulfill
>>>> its promise to restore or keep the insurance
>>>> regulations, the influence of mega-donors like Aetna
>>>> might just have something to do with it.
>>>>
>>>> It's also strong evidence that these contributions have
>>>> nothing to do with expression of a corporation's views,
>>>> but simply getting Republicans elected.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 6/15/2012 8:49 AM, Steve Hoersting wrote:
>>>>> So, Aetna has disclosed the fact that it supports
>>>>> those who support medical markets. This is
>>>>> interesting, and surprising. Finally, the voters will
>>>>> learn that the Chamber /really/ supports free enterprise.
>>>>>
>>>>> But let's see what, if anything, happens to Aetna in
>>>>> the next few months. We will see whether the voters
>>>>> simply take their cues from this disclosure and better
>>>>> understand the Chamber's message. Or see whether the
>>>>> disclosure paves the way for boycotts or brickbats.
>>>>>
>>>>> If the Target
>>>>> <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/02/target-gay-marriage-ban-minnesota_n_1564739.html>
>>>>> matter is any indicator, Color of Change or, perhaps,
>>>>> Kathleen Sebelius in this case (/see/ Michael Cannon
>>>>> and Diane Cohen's latest study
>>>>> <http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/302876/ipab-obamacare-s-super-legislature-michael-f-cannon?pg=2>
>>>>> to understand what I mean) will have Aetna selling
>>>>> "Single Payer" t-shirts by October.
>>>>>
>>>>> Steve Hoersting
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 12:02 AM, Rick Hasen
>>>>> <rhasen at law.uci.edu <mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Back Monday <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=35746>
>>>>>
>>>>> Posted on June 14, 2012 9:01 pm
>>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=35746> by Rick
>>>>> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>>>>
>>>>> See you then.
>>>>>
>>>>> Share
>>>>> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D35746&title=Back%20Monday&description=>
>>>>> Posted in Uncategorized
>>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1> | Comments Off
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> “Aetna Confirms It Gave $7.8 Million To
>>>>> Chamber, American Action Network”
>>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=35744>
>>>>>
>>>>> Posted on June 14, 2012 9:00 pm
>>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=35744> by Rick
>>>>> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>>>>
>>>>> Tip of a very large iceberg, I suspect.
>>>>>
>>>>> Must-read
>>>>> <http://news.bna.com/mpdm/MPDMWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=27071457&vname=mpebulallissues&jd=a0d3d5m7n5&split=0>
>>>>> Bloomberg BNA: “The insurance company Aetna
>>>>> confirmed June 14 that it donated about $7.8
>>>>> million to two major Republican-leaning
>>>>> organizations—the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and
>>>>> American Action Network—which have sponsored tens
>>>>> of millions of dollars worth of political ads but
>>>>> have never disclosed their funding sources. The
>>>>> revelation—which came due to an accidental filing
>>>>> by Aetna—was significant because few, if any,
>>>>> political donations from large, public
>>>>> corporations have been revealed previously….’We
>>>>> support organizations and candidates who share our
>>>>> views on how to fix the problems facing our health
>>>>> care system, as well as our country,’ [Aetna
>>>>> President] Bertolini said. ‘We fully comply with
>>>>> all federal and state disclosure
>>>>> requirements.’…The Chamber spent over $30 million
>>>>> on television ads in the 2010 congressional
>>>>> elections—nearly all of it backing Republican
>>>>> candidates or attacking Democrats.”
>>>>>
>>>>> Share
>>>>> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D35744&title=%E2%80%9CAetna%20Confirms%20It%20Gave%20%247.8%20Million%20To%20Chamber%2C%20American%20Action%20Network%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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> “Let Them Give Millions”
>>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=35741>
>>>>>
>>>>> Posted on June 14, 2012 8:54 pm
>>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=35741> by Rick
>>>>> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>>>>
>>>>> Andrew Rosenthal
>>>>> <http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/14/let-them-give-millions/?ref=politics>
>>>>> on Newt Gingrich’s campaign finance complaints.
>>>>>
>>>>> Share
>>>>> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D35741&title=%E2%80%9CLet%20Them%20Give%20Millions%E2%80%9D&description=>
>>>>> Posted in campaign finance
>>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> | Comments Off
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> “FEC Deadlocks On Attempted Evasion of
>>>>> Disclosure Laws”
>>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=35738>
>>>>>
>>>>> Posted on June 14, 2012 5:28 pm
>>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=35738> by Rick
>>>>> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>>>>
>>>>> This item
>>>>> <http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1766:june-14-2012-fec-deadlocks-on-attempted-evasion-of-disclosure-laws&catid=63:legal-center-press-releases&Itemid=61>
>>>>> appears at the CLC Blog.
>>>>>
>>>>> Share
>>>>> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D35738&title=%E2%80%9CFEC%20Deadlocks%20On%20Attempted%20Evasion%20of%20Disclosure%20Laws%E2%80%9D&description=>
>>>>> Posted in campaign finance
>>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, federal
>>>>> election commission
>>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=24> | Comments Off
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> “Florida governor mistaken for dead in 2006
>>>>> vote” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=35736>
>>>>>
>>>>> Posted on June 14, 2012 5:27 pm
>>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=35736> by Rick
>>>>> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>>>>
>>>>> Reuters
>>>>> <http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/14/us-usa-voting-florida-idUSBRE85D15R20120614>:
>>>>> “Florida’s governor, who is leading a disputed
>>>>> purge of voter registration rolls, had to cast a
>>>>> provisional ballot in 2006 because officials
>>>>> mistakenly thought he was dead, election officials
>>>>> said on Thursday.”
>>>>>
>>>>> Share
>>>>> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D35736&title=%E2%80%9CFlorida%20governor%20mistaken%20for%20dead%20in%202006%20vote%E2%80%9D&description=>
>>>>> Posted in election administration
>>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The Voting
>>>>> Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60> |
>>>>> Comments Off
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> “WyLiberty Attorneys File Lawsuit to Stop FEC
>>>>> Chill on Free Speech”
>>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=35733>
>>>>>
>>>>> Posted on June 14, 2012 2:03 pm
>>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=35733> by Rick
>>>>> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>>>>
>>>>> Press release
>>>>> <http://wyliberty.org/feature/wyliberty-attorneys-file-lawsuit-to-stop-fec-chill-on-free-speech/>:
>>>>> “Wyoming Liberty Group attorneys filed a lawsuit
>>>>> <http://wyliberty.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Free-Speech-v-FEC-Verified-Complaint.pdf>
>>>>> in the Wyoming federal district court today
>>>>> against the Federal Election Commission (FEC) on
>>>>> behalf of Free Speech, a Wyoming grassroots
>>>>> organization…The suit, Free Speech v. Federal
>>>>> Election Commission, argues that vague and
>>>>> overbroad FEC regulations, which require
>>>>> grassroots groups to register as ‘political
>>>>> committees’ (PACs), effectively shut down much
>>>>> speech in the heartland.”
>>>>>
>>>>> It is not clear how much this complaint overlaps
>>>>> with the recent 4th Circuit decision
>>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=35602> in the /Real
>>>>> Truth About Obama/ case.
>>>>>
>>>>> Share
>>>>> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D35733&title=%E2%80%9CWyLiberty%20Attorneys%20File%20Lawsuit%20to%20Stop%20FEC%20Chill%20on%20Free%20Speech%E2%80%9D&description=>
>>>>> Posted in campaign finance
>>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> | Comments Off
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> “Law & Order: Election Administration Unit;
>>>>> News Roundup: 2012 has been a litigious year”
>>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=35730>
>>>>>
>>>>> Posted on June 14, 2012 12:17 pm
>>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=35730> 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>
>>>>>
>>>>> Share
>>>>> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D35730&title=%E2%80%9CLaw%20%26%20Order%3A%20Election%20Administration%20Unit%20News%20Roundup%3A%202012%20has%20been%20a%20litigious%20year%E2%80%9D&description=>
>>>>> Posted in election administration
>>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The Voting
>>>>> Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60> |
>>>>> Comments Off
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Justice Kennedy Issues Temporary Stay in
>>>>> Arizona Voter Registration Case
>>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=35727>
>>>>>
>>>>> Posted on June 14, 2012 12:11 pm
>>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=35727> by Rick
>>>>> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>>>>
>>>>> SCOTUSBlog
>>>>> <http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/06/new-arizona-election-plea/>:
>>>>> “FINAL UPDATE Thursday 2:20 p.m. Justice Kennedy
>>>>> has issued a temporary order
>>>>> <http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Kennedy-order-11A1189.pdf>
>>>>> delaying the Ninth Circuit Court’s ruling, at
>>>>> least until further briefs are filed in the case.
>>>>> The Circuit Court mandate was due to be issued
>>>>> tomorrow, but now will be delayed until at least
>>>>> next Wednesday afternoon. The challengers to the
>>>>> Arizona citizenship proof requirement are to file
>>>>> a brief by Monday afternoon, with a state reply
>>>>> due by noon Wednesday. Earlier today, this post
>>>>> was updated to provide a link to the application,
>>>>> here
>>>>> <http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/11A1189-AZ-applic.pdf>.”
>>>>>
>>>>> Share
>>>>> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D35727&title=Justice%20Kennedy%20Issues%20Temporary%20Stay%20in%20Arizona%20Voter%20Registration%20Case&description=>
>>>>> Posted in NVRA (motor voter)
>>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=33> | 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 <tel:949.824.3072> - office
>>>>> 949.824.0495 <tel: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
>>>>> Pre-order The Voting Wars:http://amzn.to/y22ZTv
>>>>> www.thevotingwars.com <http://www.thevotingwars.com>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Law-election mailing list
>>>>> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>>>>> <mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
>>>>> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Stephen M. Hoersting
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Law-election mailing list
>>>>> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu <mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
>>>>> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Law-election mailing list
>>>> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>>>> <mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
>>>> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Stephen M. Hoersting
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Mark Schmitt
>>> Senior Fellow, The Roosevelt Institute
>>> 202/246-2350 <tel:202%2F246-2350>
>>> gchat or Skype: schmitt.mark
>>> twitter: @mschmitt9
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Stephen M. Hoersting
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Stephen M. Hoersting
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Law-election mailing list
>>> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu <mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
>>> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>>
>> --
>> Mark Schmitt
>> Senior Fellow, The Roosevelt Institute
>> 202/246-2350 <tel:202%2F246-2350>
>> gchat or Skype: schmitt.mark
>> twitter: @mschmitt9
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Law-election mailing list
>> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu <mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
>> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> <mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
>
>
>
> --
> Stephen M. Hoersting
>
--
Mark Schmitt
Senior Fellow, The Roosevelt Institute
202/246-2350
gchat or Skype: schmitt.mark
twitter: @mschmitt9
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120616/ad33a9dd/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 1520 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120616/ad33a9dd/attachment.png>
View list directory