[EL] State law (Arizona) definitions of express advocacy

[Eric Lycan]

http://www.dcourier.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=112000A

On this same question, yesterday a “judge has ruled that Arizona campaign finance laws requiring political committees to register and report their spending and fundraising are unconstitutional.”  From the article, it appears he ruled that an EC-type “Call-candidate-X” “issue” ad did not require registration and reporting as a committee because it did not use the Buckley magic words, but his ruling was that the statute is unconstitutional.  It is not clear the breadth or reasoning of that ruling.

Does anyone have that opinion?


D. Eric Lycan
Steptoe & Johnson PLLC
2525 Harrodsburg Road, Suite 300
Lexington, KY 40504
O: 859-219-8213 F: 304-933-8715 C: 859-621-8888
Eric.Lycan at Steptoe-Johnson.com
www.steptoe-johnson.com<http://www.steptoe-johnson.com/>
Twitter: @KYcampaignlaw

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Edward Still
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 3:13 PM
To: Election Law
Subject: Re: [EL] State law definitions of express advocacy

Here's go my little bit toward crowd-sourcing an answer.

Alabama amended it Fair Campaign Practices Act to add references to electioneering communications in 2011. The following was added to § 17-5-2(a):

(4) ELECTIONEERING COMMUNICATION. Any communication disseminated through any federally regulated broadcast media, any mailing, or other distribution, electronic communication, phone bank, or publication which (i) contains the name or image of a candidate; (ii) is made within 120 days of an election in which the candidate will appear on the ballot; (iii) the only reasonable conclusion to be drawn from the presentation and content of the communication is that it is intended to influence the outcome of an election; and (iv) entails an expenditure in excess of one thousand dollars ($1,000).




Edward Still
Edward Still Law Firm LLC
130 Wildwood Parkway, Suite 108, PMB 304
Birmingham AL 35209
205-320-2882 (voice & fax)
  still at votelaw.com<mailto:still at votelaw.com>
  www.votelaw.com/blog<http://www.votelaw.com/blog>
  www.edwardstill.com<http://www.edwardstill.com/>
  www.linkedin.com/in/edwardstill<http://www.linkedin.com/in/edwardstill>

On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 8:48 AM, Roy Schotland <schotlan at law.georgetown.edu<mailto:schotlan at law.georgetown.edu>> wrote:
Blessings on Eric Lycan for pursuing this.  Caveat false leads-- e.g. Maryland adopted a splendid statute ... and two weeks later amended to restore "magic words"; the amendment is often missed.
      His question is The Key, I believe, to the most-needed, most self-defeatingly ignored, realm of state disclosure law.

________________________________
From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> on behalf of Eric Lycan
Sent: Thu 10/18/2012 9:01 AM
To: law-election at UCI.edu
Subject: [EL] State law definitions of express advocacy
Does anyone have or know of a reference/list/chart for which states (such as Kentucky) continue to use the Buckley definition of express advocacy, and those that have adopted a WRTL II no-reasonable-interpretation-other-than definition?

Thank you.


D. Eric Lycan
Steptoe & Johnson PLLC
2525 Harrodsburg Road, Suite 300
Lexington, KY 40504
O: 859-219-8213<tel:859-219-8213> F: 304-933-8715<tel:304-933-8715> C: 859-621-8888<tel:859-621-8888>
Eric.Lycan at Steptoe-Johnson.com
www.steptoe-johnson.com<http://www.steptoe-johnson.com/>
Twitter: @KYcampaignlaw

________________________________

Steptoe & Johnson PLLC Note:
This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be protected by legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this e-mail or any attachment is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by returning it to the sender and delete this copy from your system. Also, In accordance with I.R.S. Circular 230, we advise you that any tax advice in this email is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, by any recipient for the avoidance of penalties under federal tax laws. Thank you for your cooperation.

_______________________________________________
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


________________________________

Steptoe & Johnson PLLC Note:
This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be protected by legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this e-mail or any attachment is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by returning it to the sender and delete this copy from your system. Also, In accordance with I.R.S. Circular 230, we advise you that any tax advice in this email is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, by any recipient for the avoidance of penalties under federal tax laws. Thank you for your cooperation.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20121019/e005adb7/attachment.html>