[EL] Paz Harassment
Joe La Rue
joseph.e.larue at gmail.com
Thu Aug 29 13:57:20 PDT 2013
But why should the question be about who gives more to whom? Why shouldn't
the question rather be, *Who is giving enough to buy influence *(in the
case of candidate elections) *or to have a significant interest in the
outcome* (in the case of ballot initiatives)? In other words, in a
multi-million dollar campaign, is it really reasonable to think that
someone who gives $1,000 is purchasing influence, or has a significant
interest in the outcome of the ballot question?
Now, if we're talking about a $10,000 campaign, I think it *is *reasonable
to think that such a donor may have an interest that it behooves the public
to know about. But in a multi-million dollar campaign? Of course someone
giving $1,000 isn't buying interest. Nor is he doing enough to ensure the
ballot question a better chance of passage.
Rather, what that donor is doing is simply trying to help a candidate or
cause he or she believes in. How does it serve the public interest for me
to know that?
Joe
___________________
*Joseph E. La Rue*
cell: 480.272.2715
email: joseph.e.larue at gmail.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is
for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential
and privileged information or otherwise be protected by law. Any
unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you
have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender
and permanently delete the message.
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION/ATTORNEY WORK
PRODUCT.
IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: Any tax advice contained in this communication
was not written and is not intended to be used for the purpose of (i)
avoiding penalties imposed by the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting,
marketing, or recommending any transaction or matter addressed herein.
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 1:47 PM, Michael P McDonald <mmcdon at gmu.edu> wrote:
> The literature on campaign finance donations from large (i.e., above
> $200) donors finds that they give predominantly more to incumbents over
> non-incumbents. I'm working on a manuscript now that examines small donor
> patterns (below $200) and we find, among other things, that small donors
> give to incumbents and non-incumbents alike.
>
> I don't know the motivation why larger donors give more to incumbents. I
> think we need to know more to understand why they might want to give to
> those in power versus those out. One might presume it is for access or more
> nefarious reasons, which is those "democratic values" some care about
> enough to balance against disclosure. What I'm trying to get at is a
> threshold number that we might be able to empirically measure to agree
> upon: the value at which a donor has the perception that their donation is
> buying them something. I hesitate to suggest that I think Brad and I are in
> agreement that is where the line should be drawn. I haven't seen an
> analysis patterns of giving for gradated large donations, say
> $200-$500,$500-$1000, etc. That might inform us as to an agreeable level to
> set the threshold. I'm certainly willing to believe that the line is above
> $200. I'm a skeptical it is as high as $25K, but I'm willing to let the
> evidence speak for itself.
>
>
> ============
> Dr. Michael P. McDonald
> Associate Professor
> George Mason University
> 4400 University Drive - 3F4
> Fairfax, VA 22030-4444
>
> phone: 703-993-4191 (office)
> e-mail: mmcdon at gmu.edu
> web: http://elections.gmu.edu
> twitter: @ElectProject
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Smith, Brad [BSmith at law.capital.edu]
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 29, 2013 3:21 PM
>
> *To:* Michael P McDonald; law-election at UCI.edu
> *Subject:* RE: [EL] Paz Harassment
>
> I think you'd want to get into five figures before you can be taken
> seriously, at least in a race for federal office. I would like to see it at
> $25K or $50K.
>
> I'm willing to entertain a lower number, but when I press on what
> threshold might be agreeable to regulators, no one was willing to give a
> number. Is it $1,000, $250, or what? What contribution level qualifies as
> one as a small donor? We can't have a reasonable discussion about changing
> policy without that information.
>
> Ball in your court.
>
> *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 Michael P
> McDonald [mmcdon at gmu.edu]
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 29, 2013 2:52 PM
> *To:* law-election at UCI.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] Paz Harassment
>
> I'll cut to the chase and start this debate where we last left it off.
> The current federal disclosure law is an aggregate of $200/candidate per
> election. As I said then, a disclosure threshold is reasonable. Many
> conservatives on the list also expressed agreement that disclosure
> thresholds are reasonable. I'm willing to entertain a higher number, but
> when I pressed on what threshold might be agreeable to conservatives, no
> one was willing to give a number. Is it $1,000, $1 billion, or what? What
> contribution level qualifies as one as a small donor? We can't have a
> reasonable discussion about changing policy without that information.
>
> ============
> Dr. Michael P. McDonald
> Associate Professor
> George Mason University
> 4400 University Drive - 3F4
> Fairfax, VA 22030-4444
>
> phone: 703-993-4191 (office)
> e-mail: mmcdon at gmu.edu
> web: http://elections.gmu.edu
> twitter: @ElectProject
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Smith, Brad [BSmith at law.capital.edu]
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 29, 2013 2:41 PM
> *To:* Michael P McDonald; law-election at UCI.edu
> *Subject:* RE: [EL] Paz Harassment
>
> It is an important "democratic value" that the names and addresses of
> smalltime donors such as Holly Paz be made public.
>
> Serious argument, or "straw man"?
>
> I'm going with "straw man," but there may be people who take that
> argument seriously.
>
> *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 Michael P
> McDonald [mmcdon at gmu.edu]
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 29, 2013 2:24 PM
> *To:* law-election at UCI.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] Paz Harassment
>
> Do you guys ever get tired of punching straw men? No one ever said
> there was no political harassment and several people gave examples of it,
> myself included. The claim was the harassment *for a campaign donation* was
> a rare thing, is terrible, but when weighed against other democratic values
> should be properly handled through law enforcement. I don't think Ms. Paz
> is being harassed for a campaign donation.
>
> ============
> Dr. Michael P. McDonald
> Associate Professor
> George Mason University
> 4400 University Drive - 3F4
> Fairfax, VA 22030-4444
>
> phone: 703-993-4191 (office)
> e-mail: mmcdon at gmu.edu
> web: http://elections.gmu.edu
> twitter: @ElectProject
> ------------------------------
> *From:* law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] on behalf of Smith, Brad [
> BSmith at law.capital.edu]
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 29, 2013 2:03 PM
> *To:* Bill Maurer; law-election at UCI.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] Paz Harassment
>
> Ah, so that explains why the President has urged higher taxes on the
> wealthy - he's a captive of his donor base of IRS agents! Thank goodness
> now we know. Had I know this 10 months ago, it would certainly have
> influenced my vote, and helped me make sense of the campaign.
>
> By the way, Bill - you're not much good at using the databases - I got
> to her street address in 25 seconds from the time I started looking, and it
> took me that long because I kept hitting the "caps lock" key when I meant
> to hit the "tab" key. I'm tempted to publish it here, because, like you
> say, it's probably not worth worrying about, and it's important for people
> to know. Otherwise, we couldn't be sure it was the right Holly Paz.
> Besides, most people making death threats probably don't *really* plan to
> kill her, they just want to harass her a bit, and a little harassment for
> someone is, well, like Justice Scalia and a few others I could name always
> say, it's a small price to pay when the alternative is not knowing which
> politicians are beholden to Holly Paz.
>
> *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 Bill Maurer [
> wmaurer at ij.org]
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 29, 2013 1:32 PM
> *To:* Rick Hasen; law-election at UCI.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] Paz Harassment
>
> I was wondering how people got Ms. Paz’s private information so they
> could engage in the harassment discussed in story, given that I imagine
> that most IRS officials are not all that forthcoming about where they
> live. Then I did a search for her political donations and—Shazam!—there it
> was, at least what state and city she lives in (had she given money in
> Washington state, her street address would have been listed too).
>
>
>
> However, I’ve been told repeatedly that using this information to harass
> people (i) doesn’t happen, (ii) isn’t that bad anyway, and (iii) it’s the
> price of political courage, so I guess it’s all okay. Maybe she’ll be able
> to get an exemption from reporting now that people have actually threatened
> to kill her, but that will depend on whether a judge decides her fear is
> “reasonable” in light of the need to “follow the money” right up to where
> the yellow police tape starts.
>
>
>
> Bill
>
>
>
> *From:* law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] *On Behalf Of *Rick Hasen
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 28, 2013 9:42 PM
> *To:* law-election at UCI.edu
> *Subject:* [EL] ELB News and Commentary 8/29/13
>
>
> “IRS official who scrutinized conservative groups facing harassment,
> attorney says” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54904>
>
> Posted on August 28, 2013 9:38 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54904> by
> Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> WaPo:<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/irs-official-who-scrutinized-conservative-groups-facing-harassment-attorney-says/2013/08/28/50577962-0ff6-11e3-bdf6-e4fc677d94a1_story.html>
>
> A top Internal Revenue Service official has faced harassment, including
> threatening telephone calls and visits to her home, after being singled out
> for criticism by Republicans, her lawyer alleges in a letter to lawmakers.
>
> The official, Holly Paz<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/06/17/what-did-top-irs-official-holly-paz-tell-congressional-investigators-here-are-the-highlights/>,
> has been on administrative leave since June in connection with the
> controversy<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-denounces-reported-irs-targeting-of-conservative-groups/2013/05/13/a0185644-bbdf-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_story.html>over how the IRS scrutinized conservative groups applying for tax-exempt
> status. Paz was involved in subjecting some tea party groups to scrutiny
> and helped conduct an internal review of the program, but has not been
> formally accused of wrongdoing.
>
>
>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D54904&title=%E2%80%9CIRS%20official%20who%20scrutinized%20conservative%20groups%20facing%20harassment%2C%20attorney%20says%E2%80%9D&description=>
>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, tax law
> and election law <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=22>
> Tom Edsall Gets Major Republican Strategists, Top U.S. Political
> Scientists to Weigh in On Chances for Republicans to Capture Presidency in
> 2016 <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54902>
>
> Posted on August 28, 2013 9:34 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54902> by
> Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Important perspectives<http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/08/28/can-republicans-paint-the-white-house-red/?hp&_r=0>
> .
>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D54902&title=Tom%20Edsall%20Gets%20Major%20Republican%20Strategists%2C%20Top%20U.S.%20Political%20Scientists%20to%20Weigh%20in%20On%20Chances%20for%20Republicans%20to%20Capture%20Presidency%20in%202016&descript>
>
> Posted in campaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
> “Obama: ‘We’re Not Going To Wait For Congress’ To Act On Voting Rights
> Act” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54900>
>
> Posted on August 28, 2013 9:28 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54900> by
> Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Video<http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/08/28/obama_were_not_going_to_wait_for_congress_to_act_on_voting_rights_act.html>from PBS News Hour interview.
>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D54900&title=%E2%80%9CObama%3A%20%E2%80%98We%E2%80%99re%20Not%20Going%20To%20Wait%20For%20Congress%E2%80%99%20To%20Act%20On%20Voting%20Rights%20Act%E2%80%9D&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>
> “N.C. Lawmakers Meet Raucous Crowd at Charlotte Forum”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54898>
>
> Posted on August 28, 2013 9:26 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54898> by
> Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> The backlash begins.<http://electionlawblog.org/N.C.%20lawmakers%20meet%20raucous%20crowd%20at%20Charlotte%20forum%20%20Read%20more%20here:%20http:/www.charlotteobserver.com/2013/08/28/4271194/nc-lawmakers-meet-raucous-crowd.html#storylink=cpy>
>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D54898&title=%E2%80%9CN.C.%20Lawmakers%20Meet%20Raucous%20Crowd%20at%20Charlotte%20Forum%E2%80%9D&description=>
>
> Posted in The Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
> “The True Cost of Free Voter I.D. in Texas”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54896>
>
> Posted on August 28, 2013 9:17 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54896> by
> Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> This interesting item<http://texaselectionlaw.wordpress.com/2013/07/25/the-true-cost-of-free-voter-i-d-in-texas/>(and many other interesting items) appear at the new “Texas Election Law
> Blog.” The blog is written by<http://texaselectionlaw.wordpress.com/about/>“Joseph Kulhavy – I am a licensed attorney in the State of Texas, and from
> October 6, 2004 until July 2, 2013, I was a staff attorney with the
> Elections Division, Texas Secretary of State.”
>
> Keep an eye here.
>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D54896&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20True%20Cost%20of%20Free%20Voter%20I.D.%20in%20Texas%E2%80%9D&description=>
>
> Posted in The Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>, voter id<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>,
> Voting Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
> Other Goings-On in Texas Since The Supreme Court Killed Voting Rights
> Act Section 5 Preclearance <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54892>
>
> Posted on August 28, 2013 9:11 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54892> by
> Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> In Pasadena, TX:<http://txredistricting.org/post/58935159956/pasadena-redistricting-moves-draw-questions>“the City of Pasadena in southeast Harris County voted 5-4 to place a
> proposition on the November 2013 ballot that, if approved by voters, would
> change the city’s current 8 single member district system of electing
> members of the city council to a 6-2 system featuring two at large members
> .<http://txredistricting.org/post/58935159956/pasadena-redistricting-moves-draw-questions>State Sen. Sylvia Garcia, MALDEF, and the
> *Houston Chronicle* have all expressed concerns that the move would
> dilute the voting strength of the city’s rapidly growing Hispanic
> population.”
>
> In Galveston, TX:
> <http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Galveston-County-may-run-afoul-of-Voting-Rights-4747681.php>“Galveston
> County commissioners have slashed the number of justice of the peace and
> constable districts a year after the U.S. Justice Department blocked a
> similar plan as discriminatory.”
>
> Yeah, the end of preclearance matters<http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/08/north_carolina_s_speedy_vote_suppression_tactics_show_exactly_why_the_voting.html>.
> And for those like James Taranto
> <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324108204579024942693167698.html>who
> say the Court didn’t really kill Section 5, only the preclearance provision
> of section 4, I debunk that claim in my APSA paper (which I’m presenting
> tomorrow), *Shelby County and the Illusion of Minimalism.*<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2291612>
>
>
>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D54892&title=Other%20Goings-On%20in%20Texas%20Since%20The%20Supreme%20Court%20Killed%20Voting%20Rights%20Act%20Section%205%20Preclearance&description=>
>
> Posted in Supreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>, Voting
> Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
> Eric Wang on McCutcheon <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54890>
>
> Posted on August 28, 2013 9:00 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54890> by
> Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Here<http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/28/wang-cutting-the-price-tag-off-free-speech/>,
> in the *Washington Times.*
>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D54890&title=Eric%20Wang%20on%20McCutcheon&description=>
>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
> “Black Republicans try to appropriate Martin Luther King”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54888>
>
> Posted on August 28, 2013 8:56 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54888> by
> Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> And apparently they don’t suppor<http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-black-republicans-try-to-appropriate-martin-luther-king/2013/08/26/2eb47d18-0e99-11e3-bdf6-e4fc677d94a1_story.html>t
> fixing the Voting Rights Act:
>
> A similar response greeted Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), who criticized the
> Supreme Court decision<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-stops-use-of-key-part-of-voting-rights-act/2013/06/25/26888528-dda5-11e2-b197-f248b21f94c4_story.html>that invalidated part of the Voting Rights Act and vowed to repair the law
> so that it is “impervious to another challenge that will be filed by the
> usual suspects. I’m with you on that.” The light applause suggested that
> most of those in attendance were not with him.
>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D54888&title=%E2%80%9CBlack%20Republicans%20try%20to%20appropriate%20Martin%20Luther%20King%E2%80%9D&description=>
>
> Posted in Voting Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
> “Sorority offered free drinks to members to vote in Tuscaloosa City
> Board of Education race” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54886>
>
> Posted on August 28, 2013 8:54 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54886> by
> Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> The *Birmingham News* reports. (h/t Political Wire)<http://politicalwire.com/archives/2013/08/28/sorority_girls_offered_free_drinks_to_vote.html#.Uh6PQVbh_mE.twitter>
>
> Offering payments or incentives for voting is illegal in federal
> elections. It is also illegal in some states. (It is illegal in all
> states to pay someone to vote *for or against* a candidate or ballot
> measure.)
>
> More on this in my article, Vote Buying.
> <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=257564>
>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D54886&title=%E2%80%9CSorority%20offered%20free%20drinks%20to%20members%20to%20vote%20in%20Tuscaloosa%20City%20Board%20of%20Education%20race%E2%80%9D&description=>
>
> Posted in vote buying <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=43>
> “Colorado: Campaign Finance complaint filed against Morse opponent
> points to the hybrid nature of recalls”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54884>
>
> Posted on August 28, 2013 10:13 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54884> by
> Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> This item<http://recallelections.blogspot.com/2013/08/colorado-campaign-finance-complaint.html>appears at the Recall Elections Blog.
>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D54884&title=%E2%80%9CColorado%3A%20Campaign%20Finance%20complaint%20filed%20against%20Morse%20opponent%20points%20to%20the%20hybrid%20nature%20of%20recalls%E2%80%9D&description=>
>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, recall
> elections <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=11>
> “What Today’s Journalists Can Learn From MLK Coverage; In 1963,
> newspapers tried to present ‘both sides’ of the civil rights struggle.
> Modern reporters should know better — but when it comes to voting rights,
> they often make the same mistake.” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54882>
>
> Posted on August 28, 2013 10:11 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54882> by
> Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Andrew Cohen writes<http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/08/what-todays-journalists-can-learn-from-mlk-coverage/278095/>for
> *The Atlantic.*
>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D54882&title=%E2%80%9CWhat%20Today%E2%80%99s%20Journalists%20Can%20Learn%20From%20MLK%20Coverage%3B%20In%201963%2C%20newspapers%20tried%20to%20present%20%E2%80%98both%20sides%E2%80%99%20of%20the%20civil%20right>
>
> Posted in The Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
> “Republicans Admit Voter ID Laws Are Aimed at Democratic Voters”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54880>
>
> Posted on August 28, 2013 9:17 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54880> by
> Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Jamelle Bouie writes<http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/08/28/republicans-admit-voter-id-laws-are-aimed-at-democratic-voters.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+thedailybeast%2Fpolitics+%28The+Daily+Beast+-+Politics%29>for
> *The Daily Beast.*
>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D54880&title=%E2%80%9CRepublicans%20Admit%20Voter%20ID%20Laws%20Are%20Aimed%20at%20Democratic%20Voters%E2%80%9D&description=>
>
> Posted in The Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
> “King’s Deferred ‘Dream’ of Democracy”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54878>
>
> Posted on August 28, 2013 8:56 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54878> by
> Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Janai Nelson writes<http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/08/27/kings-deferred-dream-of-democracy/>for Reuters Opinion.
>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D54878&title=%E2%80%9CKing%E2%80%99s%20Deferred%20%E2%80%98Dream%E2%80%99%20of%20Democracy%E2%80%9D&description=>
>
> Posted in Voting Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
> An Open Letter to Jonathan Tobin on Voter Fraud Allegations<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54875>
>
> Posted on August 28, 2013 8:32 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=54875> by
> Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Mr Tobin,
>
> Is it possible for you to stop the bait and switch<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48568>?
> No one I know who has studied this issue says there’s no voter fraud
> (hence, the misleading title of your piece: Are You Sure There’s No Voter
> Fraud<http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2013/08/27/are-you-sure-theres-no-voter-fraud-voter-id-detroi/>?).
> It happens, especially with absentee ballots.
>
> Instead, the claim is that there’s almost no voter impersonation fraud—the
> main type of fraud a voter id law would be designed to prevent. For my
> book *The Voting Wars *I tried to find a single instance where an
> election was thrown into question since 1980<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=42150>by such fraud. I could
> not find <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=19560> a single example. I found
> lots of examples of absentee ballot fraud, and election officials
> committing fraud. But because impersonation fraud is such a dumb and
> inefficient way to steal an election, it is unsurprising that it doesn’t
> happen. You offer no such examples in your writing; just innuendo.
>
> And please don’t tell me that this fraud is both widespread and impossible
> to detect (to paraphrase Colin Powell’s recent remarks). There’s not a single
> credible academic <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=42251> who would agree.
> We have some comparative numbers from News21<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48568>on prosecutions for these kinds of crimes. Absentee ballot fraud is a real
> problem. Impersonation fraud is negligible. There’s no reason to believe
> that impersonation fraud would be harder to catch. In fact, because it
> would involve a lot of people going to polling places claiming to be
> someone else, it would be easier to catch.
>
> So spare me the unsubstantiated allegations. And if you are really serious
> that voter fraud is a major problem, let’s see you get behind and advocate
> for the elimination of no excuse absentee balloting before you attack
> phantom targets.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Rick Hasen
>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D54875&title=An%20Open%20Letter%20to%20Jonathan%20Tobin%20on%20Voter%20Fraud%20Allegations&description=>
>
> Posted in fraudulent fraud squad <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=8>, The
> Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
>
> --
>
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130829/93682dac/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130829/93682dac/attachment.png>
View list directory