[EL] Fwd: An Aetna Experiment

Steve Hoersting hoersting at gmail.com
Mon Jun 18 03:25:21 PDT 2012 

Correction: Williams is a former CEO of Aetna.

On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 6:22 AM, Steve Hoersting <hoersting at gmail.com>wrote:

> Some may recall I said earlier, "First let me say, I would not be at all
> surprised if Aetna's views [on the individual mandate] have evolved or
> changed in the past decade *** for Aetna, too, is learning."
>
> Interestingly enough, here is an op-ed by a CEO with evolving views on the
> individual mandate in today's *WSJ*.  "Why I No Longer Support the Health
> Insurance Mandate."
>
> Its author happens to be... Ron Williams, CEO of Aetna.  Thought I'd share
> it with the list.
>
>
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303734204577464713182634028.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopOpinion&_nocache=1340013795649&user=welcome
>
> - Steve
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 5:33 PM, Jeff Hauser <jeffhauser at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "The communications are absolutely about groups of citizens expressing
>> views on candidates -- no question about it, Mark.  We agree there."
>>
>> Where the heck did the idea that Aetna is owned by "citizens" come from?
>> There is no reason to think that 100%, or even 50%, of the equity is held
>> by American citizens.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 6:12 PM, Steve Hoersting <hoersting at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> The communications are absolutely about groups of citizens expressing
>>> views on candidates -- no question about it, Mark.  We agree there.
>>>
>>> We were promised in 1938, in a *Carolene* compromise, that it is safe
>>> to close the courts to economic claims because economic deprivations are
>>> unlikely to occur in a system of robust political processes: Economics
>>> would be deemed a political question.
>>>
>>> Retaliation 1) by government officials 2) with the regulatory *means*to determine a business providers' very economic fate (
>>> *see* IPAB and Dodd-Frank for its sweeping authority and lack of checks
>>> by co-equal branches), who have 3) demonstrated a *motive* to retaliate
>>> (*see* Attack Watch, the selective application of the DISCLOSE Act, a
>>> selective application of Draft executive orders, Sebelius' threat to keep
>>> outspoken opponents from healthcare exchanges and multiple other examples)
>>> and you quickly begin to see the *Carolene *compromise is dead without
>>> a meaningful exemption from campaign disclosure for independent,
>>> non-corrupting speakers who rightly see political participation as their
>>> only remedy but do not relish being next to be abused.
>>>
>>> If the *Carolene* compromise is dead, so is popular sovereignty.
>>> What's a reviewing Court to do?
>>>
>>> - S
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 5:31 PM, Mark Schmitt <schmitt.mark at gmail.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>>  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>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
>>>>> > 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>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.
>>>>>>>  [image: 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.”
>>>>>>>  [image: 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.
>>>>>>>  [image: 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.
>>>>>>>  [image: 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.”
>>>>>>>  [image: 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.
>>>>>>>  [image: 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>
>>>>>>>  [image: 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>
>>>>>>> .”
>>>>>>>  [image: 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 92697-8000949.824.3072 - 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Stephen M. Hoersting
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Law-election mailing listLaw-election at department-lists.uci.eduhttp://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Law-election mailing list
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  --
>>>> Stephen M. Hoersting
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Stephen M. Hoersting
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Law-election mailing listLaw-election at department-lists.uci.eduhttp://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Mark Schmitt
>>>> Senior Fellow, The Roosevelt Institute
>>>> 202/246-2350
>>>> gchat or Skype: schmitt.mark
>>>> twitter: @mschmitt9
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Law-election mailing list
>>>> 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
>>> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Stephen M. Hoersting
>
>


-- 
Stephen M. Hoersting
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120618/b3008503/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/20120618/b3008503/attachment.png>

View list directory