[EL] Grassroots Lobbyign Disclosure
Steve Klein
stephen.klein.esq at gmail.com
Mon Aug 26 06:36:41 PDT 2013
In the context of issue advocacy (I prefer to avoid
compartmentalizing types of it - ballot measures, grassroots lobbying,
etc.), the Ninth Circuit provides the most honest assessment of the
informational interest:
If our Congress “cannot be expected to explore the myriad pressures to
which they are regularly subjected,” then certainly neither can the general
public. People have jobs, families, and other distractions. While we would
hope that California voters will independently consider the policy
ramifications of their vote, and not render a decision based upon a
thirty-second sound bite they hear the day before the election, we are not
that idealistic nor that naive. By requiring disclosure of the source and
amount of funds spent for express ballot-measure advocacy, California—at a
minimum—provides its voters with a useful shorthand for evaluating the
speaker behind the sound bite.
Shorthand.
For issue advocacy, the informational interest is, at its best, government
adding to a message to let distracted citizens know what's really important
and, at worst, giving them a name they'd be predisposed to trust/distrust
so they don't have to think about the message at all. I call it what it is
- the obfuscational interest.
On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 7:16 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
>
--
Steve Klein
Staff Attorney & Research Counsel*
Wyoming Liberty Group
www.wyliberty.org
**Licensed to practice law in Illinois. Counsel to the Wyoming Liberty
Group pursuant to Rule 5.5(d) of the Wyoming Rules of Professional Conduct.*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130826/6a682d1e/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/20130826/6a682d1e/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/20130826/6a682d1e/attachment-0001.png>
View list directory