[EL] Grassroots Lobbyign Disclosure
Steve Hoersting
hoersting at gmail.com
Mon Aug 26 06:22:35 PDT 2013
Wrong.
Find and check out a video seminar called A Skeptical Look at Grassroots
Lobbying Disclosure on the Cato Institute website.
Suffer through the whole thing and you will be much further along.
Best,
Steve Hoersting
On Aug 26, 2013 9:17 AM, "Lloyd Mayer" <lmayer at nd.edu> wrote:
> Having recently delved into grassroots lobbying disclosure, I should note
> that another rationale asserted in its favor is providing information to
> the targeted members of the public. Providing information is of course one
> of government interests stated by the Court in *Buckley* for permitting
> required disclosure even in the face of constitutional objections, and is
> the primary (only?) rationale relied upon in the portion of the *Citizens
> United* decision relating to disclosure. Of course in those contexts the
> interest was providing information to voters, but it is not a great stretch
> to expand that interest to include providing information to the public that
> is sought to be influenced in the grassroots lobbying context. ****
>
> ** **
>
> Lloyd Hitoshi Mayer****
>
> Professor of Law & Associate Dean****
>
> Notre Dame Law School****
>
> P.O. Box 780****
>
> Notre Dame, IN 46556-0780****
>
> campus address: 1106 Eck Hall of Law****
>
> (574) 631-8057/cell: (574) 598-0740/fax: (574) 631-4197****
>
> Web Bio: http://law.nd.edu/directory/lloyd-mayer/****
>
> SSRN Author Page:
> http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=504775****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] *On Behalf Of *Eric Lycan
> *Sent:* Monday, August 26, 2013 8:46 AM
> *To:* Smith, Brad; law-election at uci.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] KY Legislative Ethics proposal to require reporting
> of grassroots lo...****
>
> ** **
>
> *Thanks to everyone from both points of view for the informative
> responses. *****
>
> * *****
>
> *I am aware of the case law (though Harris was a new one to me) as to
> disclosure of electoral spending, and also that many states have grassroots
> lobbying disclosure. What is not clear to me is how the anti-corruption
> rationale applies to allow regulation of non-electoral, indirect speech on
> current legislative issues (as opposed to ballot issues addressed in
> Belotti). If independent expenditures are not sufficiently corrupting to
> justify a ban on IEs, can independent non-electoral,
> non-candidate/officeholder speech be regulated - even to the extent of
> requiring disclosure - when there can be no corrupting influence
> (recognizing that not everyone agrees with that premise)? It seems to me
> that removing the electoral element from the equation takes the
> anti-corruption rationale off the field.*****
>
> * *****
>
> *The regulation of direct lobbying might be the justification for
> regulation of speech by the lobbyist’s employer; however, if the ability to
> make contributions does not affect the ability of a (non-corporate)
> contributor to make unlimited IEs in the post-CU world, perhaps the added
> element of lobbyist involvement does not justify the regulation of such
> purely issue-related speech.*****
>
> * *****
>
> *If anyone is aware of challenges to state grassroots lobbying laws, I
> would be very interested in the courts’ analyses. And of course your
> thoughts, which are compelling reading. Thanks.*****
>
> * *****
>
> * *****
>
> ****
>
> *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****
>
> Twitter:* @KYcampaignlaw*****
>
> ****
>
> [image: cid:image001.png at 01CE1F1F.E190E620]****
>
> * *****
>
> *From:* law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] *On Behalf Of *Smith, Brad
> *Sent:* Sunday, August 25, 2013 9:02 AM
> *To:* law-election at uci.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] KY Legislative Ethics proposal to require reporting
> of grassroots lo...****
>
> ****
>
> For reasons Jim and Allen have addressed, and a couple others as well, I
> think it is dishonest to say that the Court has "approved," "upheld," or
> "sanctioned" the type of disclosure that the reform community and CLC now
> seek to impose broadly on 501c4 groups. There is certainly language in
> Citizens United (especially when coupled with McConnell and Doe v. Reed) to
> make one project that the Court would uphold such regulation if presented
> squarely with the issue today. But for now the controlling precedent, in
> which the Court has squarely faced that issue, remains Buckley (and also
> MCFL), which does not sanction that type of disclosure and was not altered
> by Citizens United. ****
>
> ****
>
> The particular Kentucky rule may have different implications because the
> Court has seemed willing to tolerate more regulation of the behavior of
> registered lobbyists. However, one could also consider it a weaker case for
> such regulation, since the language the reform community seeks to rely on
> in Citizens United and McConnell did concern candidates running for office,
> not any advertising discussing issues. ****
>
> ****
>
> *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*****
>
> *http://law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx*****
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] on behalf of
> JBoppjr at aol.com [JBoppjr at aol.com]
> *Sent:* Sunday, August 25, 2013 8:37 AM
> *To:* PRyan at campaignlegalcenter.org; Eric.Lycan at Steptoe-Johnson.com;
> rhasen at law.uci.edu; law-election at uci.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] KY Legislative Ethics proposal to require reporting
> of grassroots lo...****
>
> Regarding:****
>
> I’m struggling to understand how you can read this passage from *Citizens
> United*: “For these reasons, we reject Citizens United's contention that
> the disclosure requirements must be limited to speech that is the
> functional equivalent of express advocacy”; and then write: “*McConnell*and
> *Citizens United* upheld electioneering communications reporting after
> being convinced by studies that ECs were the functional equivalent of
> express advocacy.”****
>
> ****
>
> Let me try to help you with your struggle.****
>
> ****
>
> *McConnell* upheld the EC provision because studies convinced the
> majority that ECs were the functional equivalent of express advocacy and
> did not apply to genuine issue advocacy. *WRTL* then narrowed the
> definition of functional equivalent to apply only when there is no
> reasonable interpretation of the message of the communication other than it
> appeals for a vote for or against a candidate -- "the appeal to vote test."
> ****
>
> ****
>
> *CU* argued that the disclosure provision should also be limited by the
> "appeal to vote test" -- the *WRTL* definition of functional equivalent.
> This is what the Court rejected -- leaving disclosure to encompass all ECs
> upheld by *McConnell*-- which the Court said was the functional
> equivalent of express advocacy and did not encompass genuine issue advocacy.
> ****
>
> ****
>
> It is true that Kennedy used the phrase "functional equivalent of express
> advocacy" without referencing whether it was WRTL's or McConnell's --
> leading some to be confused about this. However, the parties were arguing
> that it should be limited to WRTL's "appeal to vote test" -- WRTL's new
> definition of functional equivalent. ****
>
> ****
>
> So we are now back to McConnell's definition of ECs, which does not apply
> -- said the McConnell Court -- to genuine issue advocacy.****
>
> ****
>
> Some times you need to look at what the parties are arguing to understand
> what the Court rejected.****
>
> ****
>
> Jim Bopp****
>
> ****
>
> In a message dated 8/24/2013 12:29:15 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> PRyan at campaignlegalcenter.org writes:****
>
> Jim,****
>
> ****
>
> I’m struggling to understand how you can read this passage from *Citizens
> United*: “For these reasons, we reject Citizens United's contention that
> the disclosure requirements must be limited to speech that is the
> functional equivalent of express advocacy”; and then write: “*McConnell*and
> *Citizens United* upheld electioneering communications reporting after
> being convinced by studies that ECs were the functional equivalent of
> express advocacy.”****
>
> ****
>
> The 8 members of the Court upholding the challenged disclosure
> requirements in *Citizens United* gave no indication they had been
> “convinced” that the ads were “the functional equivalent of express
> advocacy.” On the contrary, the Court held that it made no difference
> whether the ads were the “functional equivalent of express advocacy” and
> explicitly rejected the “contention that the disclosure requirements must
> be limited to speech that is the functional equivalent of express advocacy.”
> ****
>
> ****
>
> And in doing so, the *Citizens United *Court explicitly distinguished
> spending restrictions, citing its decision in *WRTL*, from the disclosure
> requirements at issue in *Citizens United*. The Court wrote: “As a final
> point, Citizens United claims that, in any event, the disclosure
> requirements in § 201 must be confined to speech that is the functional
> equivalent of express advocacy. The principal opinion in *WRTL* limited
> 2 U.S.C. § 441b's restrictions on independent expenditures to express
> advocacy and its functional equivalent. Citizens United seeks to import a
> similar distinction into BCRA's disclosure requirements. We reject this
> contention.” 558 U.S. at 368-69 (citation to *WRTL* omitted).****
>
> ****
>
> And you, Jim, rejected the notion that the ads at issue in *Citizens
> United *were the “functional equivalent of express advocacy,” repeatedly
> characterizing the ads as “issue advocacy” in the complaint you filed in
> the case. Your amended complaint filed on 12/21/2007 refers to
> “issue-advocacy ad” in para. 18, refers to the ads as “protected issue
> advocacy” in para. 18, argues that the ads are subject to disclosure only
> because the FEC refused to include “the Supreme Court’s issue-advocacy safe
> harbor” established in *WRTL* in para. 22, and again refers again to the
> ads as “issue advocacy” in para. 27. ****
>
> ****
>
> Give yourself some credit, Jim! It seems you and your co-counsel
> throughout the *Citizens United* litigation convinced the Court that the
> ads were NOT the functional equivalent of express advocacy. Yet the Court
> upheld the disclosure requirements applicable to the ads anyway.****
>
> ****
>
> And there’s also the Supreme Court’s decision in *Harriss*, where the
> Court held with respect to lobbying-related disclosure (*i.e.*, what you
> would likely call “genuine issue advocacy”): “Under these circumstances, we
> believe that Congress, at least within the bounds of the Act as we have
> construed it, is not constitutionally forbidden to require the disclosure
> of lobbying activities.” *United States v. Harriss,* 347 U.S. 612, 625
> (1954).****
>
> ****
>
> And there’s the Court’s decision in *Bellotti*, where, with respect to
> corporate spending regarding a ballot referendum (*i.e.*, what you would
> likely call “genuine issue advocacy”), the Court wrote: “Identification of
> the source of advertising may be required as a means of disclosure, so that
> the people will be able to evaluate the arguments to which they are being
> subjected. In addition, we emphasized in Buckley the prophylactic effect
> of requiring that the source of communication be disclosed. 435 U.S. 765,
> 792 (internal citations omitted) (citing *Buckley*, 424 U.S. at 66-67;*Harriss
> *, 347 U.S. at 625-626).****
>
> ****
>
> In short, what I wrote yesterday (“The Court has struck down limits on
> contributions and expenditures, while upholding disclosure requirements
> applicable to issue advocacy.”) is indeed true. Best,****
>
> ****
>
> Paul Seamus Ryan****
>
> Senior Counsel****
>
> The Campaign Legal Center****
>
> 215 E Street NE****
>
> Washington, DC 20002****
>
> Ph. (202) 736-2200 ext. 214****
>
> Mobile Ph. (202) 262-7315****
>
> Fax (202) 736-2222****
>
> Website: http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/****
>
> Blog: http://www.clcblog.org/****
>
> To sign up for the CLC Blog, visit:
> http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/index.php?option=com_forme&fid=1&Itemid=63
> ****
>
> Follow us on Twitter @CampaignLegal ****
>
> Become a fan on Facebook****
>
> ****
>
> *From:* JBoppjr at aol.com [mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com]
> *Sent:* Saturday, August 24, 2013 8:57 AM
> *To:* Paul Ryan; Eric.Lycan at Steptoe-Johnson.com; rhasen at law.uci.edu;
> law-election at uci.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] KY Legislative Ethics proposal to require reporting
> of grassroots lo...****
>
> ****
>
> This is not true:****
>
> ****
>
> The Court has struck down limits on contributions and expenditures, while
> upholding disclosure requirements applicable to issue advocacy****
>
> ****
>
> *Buckley* upheld independent expenditure reports after limiting them to
> express advocacy communications thus *protecting* issue advocacy. *
> McConnell* and *Citizens United* upheld electioneering communications
> reporting after being convinced by studies that ECs were the functional
> equivalent of express advocacy -- *not* genuine issue advocacy.****
>
> ****
>
> So there is actually no Supreme Court precedent approving the reporting of
> issue advocacy or grass root lobbying at all, only cases limiting campaign
> finance reporting to express advocacy or its functional equivalent. Jim
> Bopp****
>
> ****
>
> In a message dated 8/23/2013 4:41:01 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> PRyan at campaignlegalcenter.org writes:****
>
> Mr. Lycan,****
>
> ****
>
> I’m not writing to express an opinion regarding the KY Legislative Ethics
> Commission recommendation you wrote about—I haven’t given it any thought.
> And I’m not familiar with similar legislation elsewhere. I’m only writing
> to explain that the Supreme Court for decades has applied different
> scrutiny to, and has recognized different governmental interests
> supporting, reporting/disclosure requirements vis-à-vis direct limits on
> political contributions and spending. The Court has struck down limits on
> contributions and expenditures, while upholding disclosure requirements
> applicable to issue advocacy.****
>
> ****
>
> In *Citizens Against Rent Control*, a case you cite, the Court struck
> down a limit on contributions to ballot measure committees and, in doing
> so, noted approvingly the reporting/disclosure requirements applicable to
> the plaintiff ballot measure committee’s issue advocacy. The Court wrote:
> ****
>
> ****
>
> “Notwithstanding *Buckley* and *Bellotti*, the city of Berkeley argues
> that § 602 is necessary as a prophylactic measure to make known the
> identity of supporters and opponents of ballot measures. It is true that
> when individuals or corporations speak through committees, they often adopt
> seductive names that may tend to conceal the true identity of the source.
> *Here, there is no risk that the Berkeley voters will be in doubt as to
> the identity of those whose money supports or opposes a given ballot
> measure since contributors must make their identities known under § 112 of
> the ordinance, which requires publication of lists of contributors in
> advance of the voting.* See n. 4, *supra.*” 454 U.S. at 498 (emphasis
> added).****
>
> ****
>
> Similarly, in the other cases you cite—*WRTL* and *Citizens United*—the
> Court invalidated spending limits . . . NOT disclosure requirements. And
> in *Citizens United*, the Court explicitly upheld a challenged disclosure
> requirement. In doing so, the *Citizens United* Court explicitly
> rejected the argument that disclosure must be limited to express candidate
> advocacy and cited its decision in *U.S. v. Harriss* upholding grassroots
> lobbying disclosure requirements. The Court wrote:****
>
> ****
>
> “The Court has explained that disclosure is a less restrictive alternative
> to more comprehensive regulations of speech. See, *e.g.,* *MCFL,*<http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1986161155>479 U.S., at 262, 107 S.Ct. 616.<http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1986161155>In
> *Buckley,* the Court upheld a disclosure requirement for independent
> expenditures even though it invalidated a provision that imposed a ceiling
> on those expenditures. 424 U.S., at 75–76, 96 S.Ct. 612.<http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1976142308>In
> *McConnell,* three Justices who would have found § 441b<http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=2USCAS441B&FindType=L>to be unconstitutional nonetheless voted to uphold BCRA's disclosure and
> disclaimer requirements. 540 U.S., at 321, 124 S.Ct. 619<http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=2003909967>(opinion of KENNEDY, J., joined by Rehnquist, C.J., and SCALIA, J.). And
> the Court has upheld registration and disclosure requirements on lobbyists,
> even though Congress has no power to ban lobbying itself. *United States
> v. Harriss,*<http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1954120885>347 U.S. 612, 625, 74 S.Ct. 808, 98 L.Ed. 989 (1954)<http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1954120885>(Congress “has merely provided for a modicum of information from those who
> for hire attempt to influence legislation or who collect or spend funds for
> that purpose”). For these reasons, we reject Citizens United's contention
> that the disclosure requirements must be limited to speech that is the
> functional equivalent of express advocacy.” 558 U.S. at 369.****
>
> ****
>
> Regardless of what one thinks of the KY Legislative Ethics Commission
> recommended reporting/disclosure requirement, a court would/should apply a
> different constitutional analysis than the analyses employed in the
> contribution and spending limit cases you cite. Best,****
>
> ****
>
> Paul Seamus Ryan****
>
> Senior Counsel****
>
> The Campaign Legal Center****
>
> 215 E Street NE****
>
> Washington, DC 20002****
>
> Ph. (202) 736-2200 ext. 214****
>
> Mobile Ph. (202) 262-7315****
>
> Fax (202) 736-2222****
>
> Website: http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/****
>
> Blog: http://www.clcblog.org/****
>
> To sign up for the CLC Blog, visit:
> http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/index.php?option=com_forme&fid=1&Itemid=63
> ****
>
> Follow us on Twitter @CampaignLegal <http://bit.ly/j8Q1bg> ****
>
> Become a fan on Facebook <http://on.fb.me/jroDv2>****
>
> ****
>
> *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>]
> *On Behalf Of *Eric Lycan
> *Sent:* Friday, August 23, 2013 3:49 PM
> *To:* Rick Hasen; law-election at UCI.edu
> *Subject:* [EL] KY Legislative Ethics proposal to require reporting of
> grassroots lobbying****
>
> ****
>
> *A KY political newspaper reports that the Legislative Ethics Commission
> (which regulates lobbyists, gift rules, etc.) has made recommendations to
> adopt new legislation. Much of it is unsurprising, but it also includes
> the following language:*****
>
> * *****
>
> *“Recommendation: Require reporting of the Cost of advertising which
> appears during a session of the General Assembly, and which supports or
> opposes legislation, if the cost is paid by a lobbyist's employer or a
> person affiliated with an employer.”*****
>
> * *****
>
> *This seems of very dubious constitutionality (see, e.g., Citizens
> Against Rent Control v Berkeley, WRTL, Citizens United, etc.). If the
> state cannot prohibit independent, express candidate advocacy, it is hard
> to justify significant regulation of pure grassroots advocacy. I would
> like to read other thoughts, though, on the extent to which the reporting
> requirement might survive challenge as a justifiable speech restriction.
> Does the fact that is applies only to employers of lobbyists alter the
> corruption rationale analysis? Is mere reporting an insignificant burden?
> Is anyone aware of similar legislation elsewhere, or a challenge to such?
> *****
>
> * *****
>
> *Thanks.*****
>
> * *****
>
> * *****
>
> * *****
>
> ****
>
> *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****
>
> Twitter:* @KYcampaignlaw*****
>
> ****
>
> [image: cid:image001.png at 01CE1F1F.E190E620]****
>
> * *****
>
> *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>]
> *On Behalf Of *Rick Hasen
> *Sent:* Friday, August 23, 2013 1:04 AM
> *To:* law-election at UCI.edu
> *Subject:* [EL] ELB News and Commentary 8/23/13****
>
> ****
> Law and Political Process Study Group Panel at APSA on Shelby County<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54746>
> ****
>
> Posted on August 22, 2013 8:03 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54746> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> I hope to see many of you in Chicago:****
>
> ****
>
> ****
>
> Law and Political Process Study Group
> *Panel 1 The Future of the Voting Rights Act After the Shelby County
> Case*****
>
> Date:****
>
> Thursday, Aug 29, 2013, 2:00 PM-3:45 PM****
>
> [ ]****
>
> Location:****
>
> Hilton 4A, 4th Floor
> *Subject to change.* Check the *Final Program* at the conference.****
>
> Chair(s):****
>
> Bruce E. Cain
> Stanford University****
>
> Author(s):****
>
> Regional Differences in Racial Polarization in the 2012 Presidential
> Election: Implications for the Constitutionality of Section 5 of the Voting
> Rights Act****
>
> Charles Stewart****
>
> Massachusetts Institute of Technology****
>
> Stephen D. Ansolabehere****
>
> Harvard University****
>
> ****
>
> Racially Polarized Voting, Dilution, and Preclearance: Post-Shelby County*
> ***
>
> Richard L. Engstrom****
>
> Duke University****
>
> ****
>
> Shelby County and the Illusion of Minimalism****
>
> Richard L. Hasen****
>
> University of California-Irvine****
>
> ****
>
> The Constitutional Structure of Voting Rights Enforcement****
>
> Franita Tolson****
>
> Florida State University****
>
> Discussant(s):****
>
> Luis Ricardo Fraga
> University of Washington,
> Guy-Uriel Charles
> Duke University School of Law****
>
> [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54746&title=Law
> and Political Process Study Group Panel at APSA on Shelby
> County&description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D54746&title=Law%20and%20Political%20Process%20Study%20Group%20Panel%20at%20APSA%20on%20Shelby%20County&description=>
> ****
>
> Posted in Voting Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15> | Comments
> Off ****
> “U.S. Is Suing in Texas Cases Over Voting by Minorities”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54743>
> ****
>
> Posted on August 22, 2013 5:50 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54743> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> Charlie Savage reports
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/23/us/politics/justice-dept-moves-to-protect-minority-voters-in-texas.html?hp>for
> the *NYT.*****
>
> [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54743&title=“U.S.
> Is Suing in Texas Cases Over Voting by Minorities†&description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D54743&title=%E2%80%9CU.S.%20Is%20Suing%20in%20Texas%20Cases%20Over%20Voting%20by%20Minorities%E2%80%9D&description=>
> ****
>
> Posted in Department of Justice <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=26>, election
> administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, redistricting<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>,
> Supreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>, 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 ****
> “Prosecutors charge 2 campaign aides for Miami mayoral candidate Francis
> Suarez in absentee-ballot probe” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54740> ***
> *
>
> Posted on August 22, 2013 5:48 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54740> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> Miami Herald<http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/08/22/3580232/prosecutors-charge-2-campaign.html>:
> “Miami-Dade prosecutors on Thursday charged two political operatives for
> Miami mayoral candidate Francis Suarez — including his campaign manager —
> with unlawfully submitting absentee-ballot requests online on behalf of
> voters….Francis Suarez, a sitting city commissioner and lawyer, was cleared
> of any wrongdoing during the investigation, according to the Miami-Dade
> state attorney’s office. His only involvement was advising his campaign to
> seek legal advice to make sure any online requests did not run afoul of the
> law.”****
>
> [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54740&title=“Prosecutors
> charge 2 campaign aides for Miami mayoral candidate Francis Suarez in
> absentee-ballot probe†&description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D54740&title=%E2%80%9CProsecutors%20charge%202%20campaign%20aides%20for%20Miami%20mayoral%20candidate%20Francis%20Suarez%20in%20absentee-ballot%20probe%E2%80%9D&description=>
> ****
>
> Posted in absentee ballots <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=53>, campaigns<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>,
> chicanery <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12> | Comments Off ****
> “Justice Department Sues Texas Over Voter ID Law”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54737>
> ****
>
> Posted on August 22, 2013 5:45 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54737> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> WaPo reports<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/justice-department-sues-texas-over-voter-id-law/2013/08/22/ac654a68-0b4b-11e3-9941-6711ed662e71_story.html>
> .****
>
> [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54737&title=“Justice
> Department Sues Texas Over Voter ID Law†&description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D54737&title=%E2%80%9CJustice%20Department%20Sues%20Texas%20Over%20Voter%20ID%20Law%E2%80%9D&description=>
> ****
>
> Posted in Department of Justice <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=26>, 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 ****
> More Analysis of DOJ Filings Against Texas<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54734>
> ****
>
> Posted on August 22, 2013 4:29 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54734> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> Zack Roth<http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/08/22/justice-department-sues-to-block-texas-voter-id-law/>
> ****
>
> Lyle Denniston<http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/08/u-s-sues-texas-over-voter-id/>
> ****
>
> [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54734&title=More
> Analysis of DOJ Filings Against Texas&description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D54734&title=More%20Analysis%20of%20DOJ%20Filings%20Against%20Texas&description=>
> ****
>
> Posted in Department of Justice <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=26>, The
> Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>, Voting Rights Act<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
> | Comments Off ****
> “Campaign Finance and the Cost of Doing Business”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54732>
> ****
>
> Posted on August 22, 2013 4:26 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54732> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> Steve Klein
> <http://wyliberty.org/feature/campaign-finance-and-the-cost-of-doing-business/>on
> the McCain campaign conciliation agreement.****
>
> [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54732&title=“Campaign
> Finance and the Cost of Doing Business†&description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D54732&title=%E2%80%9CCampaign%20Finance%20and%20the%20Cost%20of%20Doing%20Business%E2%80%9D&description=>
> ****
>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> | Comments
> Off ****
> And We’re Back to the “Messes with Texas” Headlines<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54730>
> ****
>
> Posted on August 22, 2013 4:18 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54730> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> *The Week*<http://theweek.com/article/index/248642/the-justice-department-messes-with-texas-over-its-voter-id-law>on today’s DOJ move.
> ****
>
> [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54730&title=And
> We’re Back to the “Messes with Texas†Headlines&description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D54730&title=And%20We%E2%80%99re%20Back%20to%20the%20%E2%80%9CMesses%20with%20Texas%E2%80%9D%20Headlines&description=>
> ****
>
> Posted in Department of Justice <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=26>, 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 ****
> “Eric Holder Sues Texas Over Voter ID. Here’s Why It’s a Long Shot.”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54727>
> ****
>
> Posted on August 22, 2013 4:16 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54727> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> TNR reports<http://www.newrepublic.com/article/114436/eric-holder-sues-texas-over-voter-id-law-why-he-might-lose>
> .****
>
> [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54727&title=“Eric
> Holder Sues Texas Over Voter ID. Here’s Why It’s a Long Shot.â€
> &description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D54727&title=%E2%80%9CEric%20Holder%20Sues%20Texas%20Over%20Voter%20ID.%20Here%E2%80%99s%20Why%20It%E2%80%99s%20a%20Long%20Shot.%E2%80%9D&description=>
> ****
>
> Posted in Department of Justice <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=26>, Voting
> Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15> | 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://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/****
>
> http://electionlawblog.org****
>
> ****
> ------------------------------
>
>
> 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
> 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. ****
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130826/408e98e1/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130826/408e98e1/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 23726 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130826/408e98e1/attachment-0001.png>
View list directory