[EL] HBO film on Gov. Palin, "Game Change" -- Protected only by CU?

Fri Mar 9 21:30:33 PST 2012

For what office is Sarah Palin a registered candidate?

On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 12:25 AM, Scarberry, Mark <
Mark.Scarberry at pepperdine.edu> wrote:

> I wonder whether any list members think HBO should have been prohibited
> from marketing or airing its film, which I understand is very critical of
> Sarah Palin, if she were currently running to be the GOP nominee for
> president? Is this like “Hillary; The Movie” but just with a bigger budget?
> Did executive producer Tom Hanks need Citizens United to protect his right
> to produce such a film to be released by HBO during primary season?
> Inquiring minds want to know.****
>
> ** **
>
> Seriously, how is this distinguishable from Citizens United, apart perhaps
> from whatever artistic merit “Game Change” may have?****
>
> ** **
>
> Mark S. Scarberry****
>
> Professor of Law****
>
> Pepperdine Univ. School of Law****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] *On Behalf Of *Sean Parnell
> *Sent:* Friday, March 09, 2012 8:32 AM
> *To:* 'Rick Hasen'; law-election at uci.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] ELB News and Commentary 3/9/12****
>
> ** **
>
> I found this amusing in the article about the NAACP going to the UN
> regarding state voting laws:****
>
> ** **
>
> “Jealous acknowledged that the Human Rights Council has no direct
> authority over American states, but he hopes that it can exert influence
> through public pressure.”****
>
> ** **
>
> I’m curious how this statement is being viewed by people who spent the
> better part of 2010 denouncing the idea of foreign involvement in U.S.
> elections (ignoring that those restrictions still stood after *Citizens
> United*)?****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> Sean Parnell****
>
> President****
>
> Impact Policy Management, LLC****
>
> 6411 Caleb Court****
>
> Alexandria, VA  22315****
>
> 571-289-1374 (c)****
>
> sean at impactpolicymanagement.com****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
> [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] *On Behalf Of *Rick
> Hasen
> *Sent:* Friday, March 09, 2012 11:11 AM
> *To:* law-election at UCI.edu
> *Subject:* [EL] ELB News and Commentary 3/9/12****
>
> ** **
> “NAACP to challenge state voting laws before U.N. panel in Geneva”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=31311>
> ****
>
> Posted on March 9, 2012 8:06 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=31311> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> McClatchy reports<http://www.kentucky.com/2012/03/08/2101368/naacp-to-challenge-state-voting.html>
> .****
>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D31311&title=%E2%80%9CNAACP%20to%20challenge%20state%20voting%20laws%20before%20U.N.%20panel%20in%20Geneva%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 ****
> Convention Fight for Republicans? <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=31308> **
> **
>
> Posted on March 9, 2012 8:02 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=31308> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> Mark Siegel, former executive director of DNC, games it out<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-siegel/not-so-fast-romney_b_1333738.html>
> .****
>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D31308&title=Convention%20Fight%20for%20Republicans%3F&description=>
> ****
>
> Posted in political parties <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=25>,
> primaries <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=32> | Comments Off ****
> Senator Feingold on Citizens United and the Montana Case<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=31306>
> ****
>
> Posted on March 9, 2012 8:01 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=31306> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> As reported<http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/08/1072621/-Russ-Feingold-SCOTUS-Beginning-to-Take-Note-of-Judicial-Disaster-That-is-Citizens-United>at Daily Kos.
> ****
>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D31306&title=Senator%20Feingold%20on%20Citizens%20United%20and%20the%20Montana%20Case&description=>
> ****
>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> | Comments
> Off ****
> “Obama’s Super Paranoia: The president’s reelection campaign doesn’t want
> to share financial resources with congressional Democrats.”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=31303>
> ****
>
> Posted on March 9, 2012 7:54 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=31303> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> Major Garrett reports<http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/obama-campaign-s-super-paranoia-20120308?mrefid=freehplead_1>for National
> Journal<http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/obama-campaign-s-super-paranoia-20120308?mrefid=freehplead_1>
> .****
>
> [image: Share]****
>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> | Comments
> Off ****
> “More Americans Elect Vogon Democracy: to Reverse our Policies, Just
> Contact and Convince 10,000 Delegates We’ve Hidden From You and Who May Not
> Exist. You Have 48 Hours.” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=31299> ****
>
> Posted on March 9, 2012 7:45 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=31299> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> Irregular Times<http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/2012/03/08/more-americans-elect-vogon-democracy-to-reverse-our-policies-just-contact-and-convince-10000-delegates-weve-hidden-from-you-and-who-may-not-exist-you-have-48-hours/>on the internal democracy struggles at Americans Elect.
> ****
>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D31299&title=%E2%80%9CMore%20Americans%20Elect%20Vogon%20Democracy%3A%20to%20Reverse%20our%20Policies%2C%20Just%20Contact%20and%20Convince%2010%2C000%20Delegates%20We%E2%80%99ve%20Hidden%20From%20You%20and%20Wh>
> ****
>
> Posted in third parties <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=47> | Comments
> Off ****
> For All on Left Who Tell Me They Want to Ban Out of State Money in Senate
> Races <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=31297> ****
>
> Posted on March 9, 2012 7:43 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=31297> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> Cher ♥ Elizabeth Warren<http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/09/us/politics/elizabeth-warrens-star-support-criticized.html?_r=1&hp>
> .****
>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D31297&title=For%20All%20on%20Left%20Who%20Tell%20Me%20They%20Want%20to%20Ban%20Out%20of%20State%20Money%20in%20Senate%20Races&description=>
> ****
>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> | Comments
> Off ****
> “Republican Turnout Lags Behind 2008 and 2000 White House Races”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=31295>
> ****
>
> Posted on March 9, 2012 7:41 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=31295> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> Bloomberg reports<http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-09/republican-turnout-lags-behind-2008-and-2000-white-house-races.html>
> .****
>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D31295&title=%E2%80%9CRepublican%20Turnout%20Lags%20Behind%202008%20and%202000%20White%20House%20Races%E2%80%9D&description=>
> ****
>
> Posted in voting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=31> | Comments Off ****
> “California Felon Voting Case Asks: When is Being in Jail Not
> “Imprisoned”?” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=31292> ****
>
> Posted on March 9, 2012 7:37 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=31292> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> A ChapinBlog<http://blog.lib.umn.edu/cspg/electionacademy/2012/03/california_felon_voting_case.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+HHHElections+%28The+Election+Aacdemy%29>
> .****
>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D31292&title=%E2%80%9CCalifornia%20Felon%20Voting%20Case%20Asks%3A%20When%20is%20Being%20in%20Jail%20Not%20%E2%80%9CImprisoned%E2%80%9D%3F%E2%80%9D&description=>
> ****
>
> Posted in felon voting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=66> | Comments Off
> ****
> “IRS May Make Political Groups Pay Dearly for Keeping Donors Secret — And
> Out Them” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=31289> ****
>
> Posted on March 9, 2012 7:32 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=31289> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> Important report
> <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/08/irs-political-groups-501c4-_n_1333389.html?ref=tw>from
> Dan Froomkin. And it may answer Eric Brown’s question<http://politicalactivitylaw.com/2012/03/09/todays-political-law-links-2/>(based on a Politico article): Where’s the corporate
> money <http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/73804.html>?****
>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D31289&title=%E2%80%9CIRS%20May%20Make%20Political%20Groups%20Pay%20Dearly%20for%20Keeping%20Donors%20Secret%20%E2%80%94%20And%20Out%20Them%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 ****
> “Horne denies allegation he tried to bribe opponent of Stearns”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=31286>
> ****
>
> Posted on March 8, 2012 5:47 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=31286> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> The *Gainesville Sun* reports<http://www.gainesville.com/article/20120308/ARTICLES/120309635/-1/opinion?Title=Horne-denies-allegation-he-tried-to-bribe-opponent-of-Stearns>
> .****
>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D31286&title=%E2%80%9CHorne%20denies%20allegation%20he%20tried%20to%20bribe%20opponent%20of%20Stearns%E2%80%9D&description=>
> ****
>
> Posted in chicanery <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12> | Comments Off **
> **
> “Senate Democrats Ask I.R.S. for More Scrutiny of Nonprofit Political
> Groups” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=31283> ****
>
> Posted on March 8, 2012 3:32 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=31283> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> NYT’s “The Caucus” reports<http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/08/senate-democrats-ask-i-r-s-for-more-scrutiny-of-nonprofit-political-groups/>
> .****
>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D31283&title=%E2%80%9CSenate%20Democrats%20Ask%20I.R.S.%20for%20More%20Scrutiny%20of%20Nonprofit%20Political%20Groups%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 ****
> “March 29 Symposium to Focus on State Judicial Elections in Post-Citizens
> United Landscape” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=31279> ****
>
> Posted on March 8, 2012 3:30 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=31279> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> This event<http://law.wm.edu/news/stories/2012/march-29-election-law-symposium-to-focus-on-changing-state-of-judicial-elections.php?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter>at William & Mary looks very good.
> ****
>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D31279&title=%E2%80%9CMarch%2029%20Symposium%20to%20Focus%20on%20State%20Judicial%20Elections%20in%20Post-Citizens%20United%20Landscape%E2%80%9D&description=>
> ****
>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, judicial
> elections <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=19> | Comments Off ****
> “Inside Merit Selection A National Survey of Judicial Nominating
> Commissioners” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=31276> ****
>
> Posted on March 8, 2012 2:47 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=31276> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> American Judicature Society<http://www.ajs.org/selection/jnc/jnc_report.asp>
> :****
>
> Summary****
>
> The results of a survey of judicial nominating commissioners released by
> the American Judicature Society (AJS) examine current merit selection
> systems. The survey report finds judicial nominating commissions are highly
> functional decision-making bodies operating in ways that are consistent
> with the goals that guided their creation.****
>
> *I<http://www.ajs.org/selection/jnc/The%20results%20of%20a%20survey%20of%20judicial%20nominating%20commissioners%20released%20by%20the%20American%20Judicature%20Society%20%28AJS%29%20examine%20current%20merit%20selection%20systems.%20The%20survey%20report%20finds%20judicial%20nominating%20commissions%20are%20highly%20functional%20decision-making%20bodies%20ope>nside
> Merit Selection: The Results of a National Survey of Judicial Nominating
> Commissioners<http://www.judicialselection.us/uploads/documents/JNC_Survey_ReportFINAL3_92E04A2F04E65.pdf>
> * is the first survey since 1994 to assess judicial nominating
> commissions, including information about commission rules, procedures,
> practices, and members’ working relationships. With 487 respondents from 30
> states and the District of Columbia, this survey is the largest of its kind.
> ****
>
> *The full report is available HERE<http://www.judicialselection.us/uploads/documents/JNC_Survey_ReportFINAL3_92E04A2F04E65.pdf>
> .*****
>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D31276&title=%E2%80%9CInside%20Merit%20Selection%20A%20National%20Survey%20of%20Judicial%20Nominating%20Commissioners%E2%80%9D&description=>
> ****
>
> Posted in judicial elections <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=19> | Comments
> Off ****
> “Mystery Group Made Calls for Mystery Candidate”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=31273>
> ****
>
> Posted on March 8, 2012 2:30 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=31273> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> Political Wire<http://politicalwire.com/archives/2012/03/08/mystery_group_made_calls_for_mystery_candidate.html>on the unknown winner of the Democratic nomination for the OH-2
> Congressional district, the aptly-named Mr. Smith.****
>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D31273&title=%E2%80%9CMystery%20Group%20Made%20Calls%20for%20Mystery%20Candidate%E2%80%9D&description=>
> ****
>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, campaigns<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>,
> chicanery <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12> | Comments Off ****
> “Innovative Analysis: Six Takes on the Republican Nomination Contest”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=31270>
> ****
>
> Posted on March 8, 2012 2:04 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=31270> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> A FairVote compendium<http://www.fairvote.org/innovative-analysis-six-takes-on-the-republican-nomination-contest#.T1ksU3miaxN>
> .****
>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D31270&title=%E2%80%9CInnovative%20Analysis%3A%20Six%20Takes%20on%20the%20Republican%20Nomination%20Contest%E2%80%9D&description=>
> ****
>
> Posted in political parties <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=25>,
> primaries <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=32> | Comments Off ****
> “Panel Says Long, Tough Campaign Will Help, Not Hurt Mitt Romney”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=31266>
> ****
>
> Posted on March 8, 2012 1:36 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=31266> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> U.S. News reports<http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/ballot-2012/2012/03/08/panel-says-long-tough-campaign-will-help-not-hurt-mitt-romney>
> .****
>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D31266&title=%E2%80%9CPanel%20Says%20Long%2C%20Tough%20Campaign%20Will%20Help%2C%20Not%20Hurt%20Mitt%20Romney%E2%80%9D&description=>
> ****
>
> Posted in political parties <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=25>,
> primaries <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=32> | Comments Off ****
> “When the GOP Tried to Ban Dark Money”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=31264>
> ****
>
> Posted on March 8, 2012 1:35 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=31264> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> Justin Elliott strolls down<http://www.propublica.org/article/when-the-gop-tried-to-ban-dark-money>memory lane.
> ****
>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D31264&title=%E2%80%9CWhen%20the%20GOP%20Tried%20to%20Ban%20Dark%20Money%E2%80%9D&description=>
> ****
>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> | Comments
> Off ****
> “White House Ethics Hub Goes Live Online”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=31261>
> ****
>
> Posted on March 8, 2012 1:29 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=31261> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> The Caucus<http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/08/white-house-ethics-hub-goes-live-online/>:
> “The Obama administration introduced a central online hub for information
> about ethics, lobbying and campaign contributions on Thursday, making good
> on a campaign pledge President Obama made in his 2008 campaign. The Web
> site, Ethics.gov <http://explore.data.gov/ethics/>, allows users to
> cross-check several federal databases for information about lobbyists and
> their activities, contribution and spending records for candidates for
> federal office and political action committees, travel by administration
> officials and visitors to the White House.”****
>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D31261&title=%E2%80%9CWhite%20House%20Ethics%20Hub%20Goes%20Live%20Online%E2%80%9D&description=>
> ****
>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, lobbying<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=28>
> | Comments Off ****
> “Republican Party Overmatched By Soros Backed ‘Vote Fraud Denier Industry’”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=31258>
> ****
>
> Posted on March 8, 2012 1:20 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=31258> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> More paranoia.<http://spectator.org/blog/2012/03/08/republican-party-overmatched-b>
> ****
>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D31258&title=%E2%80%9CRepublican%20Party%20Overmatched%20By%20Soros%20Backed%20%E2%80%98Vote%20Fraud%20Denier%20Industry%E2%80%99%E2%80%9D&description=>
> ****
>
> Posted in fraudulent fraud squad <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=8>, The
> Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60> | Comments Off ****
> Looks Like DOJ Will Decide Whether to Preclear Texas’s Voter ID Law by
> Monday <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=31255> ****
>
> Posted on March 8, 2012 1:07 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=31255> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> See here <http://txredistricting.org/?e9a5fb10>. If there’s no
> preclearance, the issue will go before a 3 judge court with a status
> hearing Wednesday.<http://txredistricting.org/post/18951283096/texas-voter-id-returns-to-the-fore-next-week-with>
> ****
>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D31255&title=Looks%20Like%20DOJ%20Will%20Decide%20Whether%20to%20Preclear%20Texas%E2%80%99s%20Voter%20ID%20Law%20by%20Monday&description=>
> ****
>
> Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The
> Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>, voter id<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>,
> Voting Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15> | Comments Off ****
> “Koch-Connected Group Shows Holes in Disclosure Requirements”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=31252>
> ****
>
> Posted on March 8, 2012 12:47 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=31252> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> Must read<http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2012/03/energy-industry-trade-groups.html>
> .****
>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D31252&title=%E2%80%9CKoch-Connected%20Group%20Shows%20Holes%20in%20Disclosure%20Requirements%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 ****
> “Bad New for Voting Rights in Swing States”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=31249>
> ****
>
> Posted on March 8, 2012 12:45 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=31249> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> Ben Adler blogs<http://www.thenation.com/blog/166689/bad-news-voting-rights-swing-states>at The Nation.
> ****
>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D31249&title=%E2%80%9CBad%20New%20for%20Voting%20Rights%20in%20Swing%20States%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 ****
> Responding to Lessig on Transparency and Americans Elect<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=31244>
> ****
>
> Posted on March 8, 2012 12:34 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=31244> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> I had asked <https://twitter.com/#%21/rickhasen/status/177552605822717952>Larry Lessig about how he could support Americans Elect given their well
> known transparency problems (for example, they won’t reveal<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26885>their donors based upon unsubstantiated
> claims <http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/67965.html> of
> potential harassment). Larry’s explanation is here<http://lessig.tumblr.com/post/18951520350/on-the-anonymous-donors-to-americans-elect>and I appreciate the care he has taken in responding.  Here’s my reply.
> ****
>
> Larry’s says he would like transparency of donors at Americans Elect, but
> he is not too troubled by the lack of transparency in this instance
> because, given AE’s structure, he does not believe that secret money could
> be used to corrupt a candidate (unlike Super PAC spending benefiting a
> candidate) in the AE process and it won’t affect the results of the AE
> candidate selection process. Further, Larry argues, maybe the concern about
> AE harassment is a legitimate one given that this is an effort to upend the
> two-party duopoly which could anger some establishment types.  I’ll respond
> to each of these points.****
>
> *1.Transparency, Corruption, and Information Shortcuts. *To begin with,
> corruption is not the only value I see in transparency. Another value is
> providing valuable information to voters. In a recent California
> initiative, the utility Pacific Gas and Electric supported an initiative
> shielding the utility from competition by public utilities.  PG&E spent $43
> million supporting the measure through a “Yes” committee, compared to $1
> million on the No side. But the measure went down to defeat, in large part
> I believe because each “Yes” ad included information that PG&E supported
> it. Voters are busy, not stupid. Knowing PG&E backed a utility measure was
> all they needed to know to vote “no.”****
>
> Similarly, if it turns out (as appears to be the case) that AE is backed
> primarily by a handful of hedge fund managers and no small donors, voters
> can evaluate whether the effort might be engineered to produce a certain
> kind of candidate (say, a centrist candidate who will be good to the
> interests of hedge fund managers). Yet AE presents itself<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=31204>as “unencumbered by special interest and Super PAC money. We’re not
> influenced by the political class of consultants or guided by Washington
> lobbyists.” Voters should be able to fully evaluate the AE effort. This is
> especially true if, as alleged by the first commenter<http://lessig.tumblr.com/post/18951520350/on-the-anonymous-donors-to-americans-elect#disqus_thread>on your Tumblr post responding to me, AE is manipulating the rules:
> changing how candidates are presented to the public in order to promote
> some over others, hiding AE delegate votes so that opponents of board rules
> don’t see them, etc.****
>
> As to corruption, I would not be so sure.  As I explained in my first
> Politico piece <http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/67965.html>,
> under AE’s bylaws the controlling  reserve the right to veto choices of
> voters cast through their Internet primary.  It is also not clear that
> their Internet primary will be free of manipulation, and there’s no secret
> ballot. In short, the AE board (presumably controlled by those paying the
> bills) have enough levers at their disposal to be able to significantly
> influence who the choice of the AE candidate. If that’s right the danger of
> corruption is as real as it is for Super PACs.****
>
> Now it may be that the AE process could get out of the Board’s control.
> I’ve suggested in my second Politico piece<http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/73607.html>that it could be hijacked by Stephen Colbert as a kind of performance art.
> In your Kindle Single One Way Forward
> <http://www.amazon.com/One-Way-Forward-Outsiders-ebook/dp/B0078TE3NG/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1331238145&sr=1-1>you
> say “We need to Occupy Americans Elect” to get them to choose a reform
> candidate (presumably your ally Buddy Roemer). But just because the process
> might be hijacked doesn’t mean that the corruption danger is not there.
> (Of course, the possibility of hijacking also means that AE could be taken
> over so that a candidate of the far left or far right gets chosen, who acts
> as a spoiler and leads to the election of a candidate who is the last
> choice of a majority of voters. But that’s a different problem.)****
>
> *2. Affecting the Outcome.  *Even if we don’t characterize the levers the
> AE board has to influence the candiate selection process as “corruption,”
> there’s no denying that those levers exist.  And if they do that’s all the
> more reason for voters to know who is behind the effort.  A candidate put
> on the ballot by thousands of small donors across the country would be
> viewed differently by voters (justifiably so) compared to a candidate
> bankrolled by a few hedge fund managers who “bought” ballot access for the
> candidate in advance.  It is just something we should all know before we
> make our decisions.****
>
> *3. Harassment.* The harassment issue is a canard. I’ve done a study<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1948313>of the recent claims of harassment in the gay marriage context (a social
> issue much hotter than the question of the two-party duopoly, I’d say), and
> the claims are incredibly weak. It is far more likely that the AE people
> are hiding their donors because you would see a small group of large,
> wealthy donors which would be less appealing to the average voter than
> through a mass movement. And even if some harassment were plausible, I’d
> suggest that your former boss<http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/justices/scalia.bio.html>has it right
> here <http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/09-559.pdf>: “Requiring
> people to stand up in public for their political acts fosters civic
> courage, without which democracy is doomed. For my part, I do not look
> forward to a society which, thanks to the Supreme Court, campaigns
> anonymously … and even exercises the direct democracy of initiative and
> referendum hidden from public scrutiny and protected from the
> accountability of criticism. This does not resemble the Home of the Brave.”
> ****
>
> UPDATE: Lessig replies here<http://lessig.tumblr.com/post/18964244848/responding-to-ricks-response>,
> and on this note I think all the relevant points have been made.****
>
>  ****
>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D31244&title=Responding%20to%20Lessig%20on%20Transparency%20and%20Americans%20Elect&description=>
> ****
>
> Posted in third parties <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=47> | Comments
> Off ****
> “‘Misunderestimating’ Campaign Finance Reform”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=31242>
> ****
>
> Posted on March 8, 2012 11:57 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=31242> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> Jonathan Backer responds<http://www.brennancenter.org/blog/archives/misunderestimating_campaign_finance_reform/>to Ezra Klein’s review
>
> <http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/mar/22/our-corrupt-politics-its-not-all-money/>of
> Larry Lessig’s and Jack Abramoff’s books.  (Lessig’s response to Klein is
> here <http://lessig.tumblr.com/post/18805061495/ezras-review>.)****
>
> Klein’s general take is that concern over campaign finance and lobbying
> reform is overblown.  Backer says it is a more important part of the
> picture than Klein recognizes.****
>
> My view: the relationship of campaign finance reform to the issues needed
> to fix Washington is very complicated. I try to sort it out in my forthcoming
> *Harvard Law Review* essay<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2017026>on Lessig’s and Abramoff’s books. Ezra way understates the importance of
> money in politics, but Lessig way overstates how much campaign finance and
> lobbying reform could accomplish.****
>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D31242&title=%E2%80%9C%E2%80%98Misunderestimating%E2%80%99%20Campaign%20Finance%20Reform%E2%80%9D&description=>
> ****
>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, legislation
> and legislatures <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=27>, lobbying<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=28>,
> political parties <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=25> | Comments Off ****
> “Super Tuesday: More Slow than Super”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=31239>
> ****
>
> Posted on March 8, 2012 10:27 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=31239> 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%3D31239&title=%E2%80%9CSuper%20Tuesday%3A%20More%20Slow%20than%20Super%E2%80%9D&description=>
> ****
>
> Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18> | Comments
> Off ****
> Breaking News: RNC Loses Appeal Over Consent Decree Barring Polling Place
> “Ballot Security” Measures <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=31235> ****
>
> Posted on March 8, 2012 8:58 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=31235> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> You can read the unanimous opinion of the three-judge-court of the United
> States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at this link<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/rncvdnc.pdf>.
> Speaking very roughly, back in 1982 the Republican National Committee
> settled a case (through a court-enforced consent decree) brought by the
> Democratic National Committee claiming that Republican “ballot security”
> programs meant to combat supposed voter fraud constituted intimidation of
> minority voters in violation of the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act.
> Among other things, the consent decree requires the RNC to get permission
> from the court before implementing certain poll watching activities.****
>
> This decree has been in place for a long time, and recently the RNC argued
> that the consent decree should be modified or dissolved.  The district
> court agreed to put an 8 year time limit on the rest of the decree (subject
> to the DNC arguing for additional extensions after 2017), but otherwise
> kept the key provisions in place.  In today’s decision, a three-judge panel
> of the Third Circuit unanimously affirmed the District Court’s decision not
> to weaken or dissolve the decree. The only point upon which the appellate
> court seemed to disagree with the district court was over whether it was
> appropriate to dissolve this in 8 years–the appellate court suggested that
> it might be improper to do so, because the mere passage of time is not
> enough to prove the decree should be dissolved.****
>
> Bottom line: huge win for the DNC here.  I do not know if the RNC will try
> for a rehearing en banc in the third circuit, but a motion for an
> injunction pending appeal to the Supreme Court Justice in charge of the
> Third Circuit, Justice Alito, does not seem to far-fetched to me.****
>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D31235&title=Breaking%20News%3A%20RNC%20Loses%20Appeal%20Over%20Consent%20Decree%20Barring%20Polling%20Place%20%E2%80%9CBallot%20Security%E2%80%9D%20Measures&description=>
> ****
>
> Posted in chicanery <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>, federal
> election commission <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=24>, political
> parties <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=25>, The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
> | Comments Off ****
> “On the Anonymous Donors to Americans Elect”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=31233>
> ****
>
> Posted on March 8, 2012 8:49 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=31233> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> Lessig responds<http://lessig.tumblr.com/post/18951520350/on-the-anonymous-donors-to-americans-elect>to my query about his support for an organization which does not disclose
> his donors.  His careful post merits a careful response. Stay tuned.****
>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D31233&title=%E2%80%9COn%20the%20Anonymous%20Donors%20to%20Americans%20Elect%E2%80%9D&description=>
> ****
>
> Posted in third parties <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=47> | Comments
> Off ****
> “Unclean elections; NYC laws invite corruption”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=31230>
> ****
>
> Posted on March 8, 2012 8:10 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=31230> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> Allison Hayward has written this oped<http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/unclean_elections_xC5dUPJXIhx5tStDvjARnN#ixzz1oUzlTHh4.>in the
> *NY Post*.****
>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D31230&title=%E2%80%9CUnclean%20elections%3B%20NYC%20laws%20invite%20corruption%E2%80%9D&description=>
> ****
>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> | 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****
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>

-- 
Jonathan Singer
http://www.polising.com
Cell: (503) 705-2952
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120310/344ec2c1/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1520 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120310/344ec2c1/attachment.png>