[EL] Grassroots Lobbyign Disclosure
Rick Hasen
rhasen at law.uci.edu
Mon Aug 26 09:11:20 PDT 2013
You are right Jim that the Court did not reach the issue in Doe v. Reed
(" Respondents assert two interests to justify the burdens of
compelled disclosure under the PRA on First Amendment
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-const?amendmenti> rights: (1)
preserving the integrity of the electoral process by combating fraud,
detecting invalid signatures, and fostering government transparency and
accountability; and (2) providing information to the electorate about
who supports the petition. See, /e.g. / , Brief for Respondent Reed
39–42, 44–45. Because we determine that the State’s interest in
preserving the integrity of the electoral process suffices to defeat the
argument that the PRA is unconstitutional with respect to referendum
petitions in general, we need not, and do not, address the State’s
“informational” interest. ")
But the Court did reach the issue and accepted the information interest
in Harriss and Citizens United. Here's a piece of Citizens United,
which surely you remember:
The Court has explained that disclosure is a less restrictive
alternative to more comprehensive regulations of speech. See, /e.g.,
/ /MCFL / , 479 U. S., at 262. 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. In /McConnell / , three Justices
who would have found §441b to be unconstitutional nonetheless voted
to uphold BCRA’s disclosure and disclaimer requirements. 540 U. S.,
at 321 (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 / , 347 U. S. 612
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-us-cite?347+612>, 625
(1954) (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.
Citizens United also disputes that an informational interest
justifies the application of §201 to its ads, which only attempt to
persuade viewers to see the film. Even if it disclosed the funding
sources for the ads, Citizens United says, the information would not
help viewers make informed choices in the political marketplace.
This is similar to the argument rejected above with respect to
disclaimers. Even if the ads only pertain to a commercial
transaction, the public has an interest in knowing who is speaking
about a candidate shortly before an election. Because the
informational interest alone is sufficient to justify application of
§201 to these ads, it is not necessary to consider the Government’s
other asserted interests.
On 8/26/2013 9:03 AM, JBoppjr at aol.com wrote:
> Regarding:
> /The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized the information interest
> as sufficient to support disclosure of political activities, from
> Harriss to Citizens United to Doe v. Reed/
> Sorry Rick, but not true. /Doe v Reed/ recognized only the state's
> interest in preventing and discovering fraud, not a voter information
> interest. Jim Bopp
> In a message dated 8/26/2013 10:17:30 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> rhasen at law.uci.edu writes:
>
>
>
> Steve,
> I'd like to see more on the substance and less on the hyperbole.
> Saying "Wrong" is not very edifying.
> In fact, Lloyd's point is correct as a matter of doctrine. The
> Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized the information interest
> as sufficient to support disclosure of political activities, from
> Harriss to Citizens United to Doe v. Reed. You may disagree with
> what the Court has said, or the extension to so-called grassroots
> lobbying, but explanation rather than dismissive tone would be
> more welcome.
> Rick
>
> On 8/26/2013 6:22 AM, Steve Hoersting wrote:
>>
>> 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
>> <mailto: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 <tel:%28574%29%20631-8057>/cell: (574)
>> 598-0740 <tel:%28574%29%20598-0740>/fax: (574) 631-4197
>> <tel:%28574%29%20631-4197>
>>
>> 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>
>> [mailto: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
>> <mailto: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 <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
>> <mailto:Eric.Lycan at Steptoe-Johnson.com>_/
>> www.steptoe-johnson.com <http://www.steptoe-johnson.com/>
>>
>> Twitter:/@KYcampaignlaw/
>>
>> cid:image001.png at 01CE1F1F.E190E620
>>
>> **
>>
>> *From:*law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
>> <mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>
>> [mailto: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 <mailto: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 <tel:614.236.6317>/
>>
>> /http://law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx/
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> *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
>> <mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>] on
>> behalf of JBoppjr at aol.com <mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com>
>> [JBoppjr at aol.com <mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com>]
>> *Sent:* Sunday, August 25, 2013 8:37 AM
>> *To:* PRyan at campaignlegalcenter.org
>> <mailto:PRyan at campaignlegalcenter.org>;
>> Eric.Lycan at Steptoe-Johnson.com; rhasen at law.uci.edu
>> <mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>; law-election at uci.edu
>> <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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
>> <tel:%28202%29%20736-2200%20ext.%20214>
>>
>> Mobile Ph. (202) 262-7315 <tel:%28202%29%20262-7315>
>>
>> Fax (202) 736-2222 <tel:%28202%29%20736-2222>
>>
>> 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>
>> [mailto: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 <mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>;
>> law-election at uci.edu <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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
>> <tel:%28202%29%20736-2200%20ext.%20214>
>>
>> Mobile Ph. (202) 262-7315 <tel:%28202%29%20262-7315>
>>
>> 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> [mailto: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
>> <mailto: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
>> <mailto:Eric.Lycan at Steptoe-Johnson.com>_/
>> www.steptoe-johnson.com <http://www.steptoe-johnson.com/>
>>
>> Twitter:/@KYcampaignlaw/
>>
>> cid:image001.png at 01CE1F1F.E190E620
>>
>> **
>>
>> *From:*law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
>> <mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> [mailto: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 <mailto: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 onAugust 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
>>
>> 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 inVoting 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 onAugust 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./
>>
>> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54743&title=“U.S.
>> Is Suing in Texas Cases Over Voting by
>> Minoritiesâ€&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 inDepartment 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 onAugust 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.”
>>
>> 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
>> probeâ€&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 inabsentee 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 onAugust 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>.
>>
>> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54737&title=“Justice
>> Department Sues Texas Over Voter ID
>> Lawâ€&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 inDepartment 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 onAugust 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/>
>>
>> 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 inDepartment 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 onAugust 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.
>>
>> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54732&title=“Campaign
>> Finance and the Cost of Doing
>> Businessâ€&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 incampaign finance
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> |Comments Off
>>
>>
>> And We’re Back to the “Messes with Texas”
>> Headlines <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54730>
>>
>> Posted onAugust 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.
>>
>> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54730&title=And
>> We’re Back to the “Messes with Texasâ€
>> 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 inDepartment 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 onAugust 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>.
>>
>> 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 inDepartment 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 <mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>
>>
>> http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
>>
>> http://electionlawblog.org <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
>> <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.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Law-election mailing list
>> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
> --
> 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
> hhttp://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
> http://electionlawblog.org
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
--
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
hhttp://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
http://electionlawblog.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130826/63c2b4b6/attachment.html>
View list directory