[EL] The Chamber and disclosure

[John Pomeranz]

The definition of "electioneering communication" explicitly excludes communications that are "independent expenditures" (i.e. uncoordinated public communications that expressly advocate the election or defeat of a federal candidate).  2 USC 434(f)(3)(B)(ii).

Many have discussed this odd result of the Van Hollen ruling.  See, for example, the piece my partner Paul Murphy wrote on Van Hollen for our firm's newsletter:  http://www.harmoncurran.com/?fuseaction=eUpdate.getArchives&newsletter_id=97



John Pomeranz
Harmon, Curran, Spielberg & Eisenberg, LLP
1726 M Street, NW, Suite 600
Washington, DC  20036
p: 202.328.3500
f: 202.328.6918
e: jpomeranz at harmoncurran.com
 


-----Original Message-----
From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Frank Askin
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 1:41 PM
To: Rick Hasen; law-election at UCI.edu
Subject: [EL] The Chamber and disclosure

   I do not understand how the Chamber of Commerce can evade disclosure of contributors by shifting electioneering communications to express advocacy.  Aren't express advocacy ads  also "electioneering communications" if they include the name of a candidate during the covered period.  FRANK


Prof. Frank Askin
Distinguished Professor of Law       and Director
Constitutional Litigation Clinic
Rutgers Law School/Newark
(973) 353-5687
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election