[EL] ELB News and Commentary 1/5/12

[Rick Hasen]

    "Obama Facing Pressure on Election Reform"
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=45934>

Posted on January 5, 2013 8:51 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=45934> 
by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Must-read Politico. 
<http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/obama-facing-pressure-on-election-reform-85793.html>

<http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/obama-facing-pressure-on-election-reform-85793.html> 


The big question is whether the Obama Administration will drop the ball 
on this, just like it never followed through on promises to reform the 
FEC and fix the broken system for public financing of presidential 
election campaigns.

Share 
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D45934&title=%E2%80%9CObama%20Facing%20Pressure%20on%20Election%20Reform%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, 
The Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60> | Comments Off


    "Obama campaign to pay $375,000 fine for omitting some donor's names
    in 2008? <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=45930>

Posted on January 5, 2013 8:47 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=45930> 
by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

WaPo 
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-campaign-to-pay-375000-fine-for-omitting-some-donors-names-in-2008/2013/01/04/78973402-56bb-11e2-8b9e-dd8773594efc_story.html>: 
"President Obama's campaign has agreed to pay a $375,000 fine to the 
Federal Election Commission, among the largest penalties in the agency's 
history. The fine was imposed after an audit of the campaign's books 
showed that it failed to report the identities of donors who gave large 
checks in the weeks before the 2008 election, according to a copy of the 
agreement between the FEC and the president's campaign....The Republican 
National Committee had charged 
<http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2008/10/rnc-to-file-fec-complaint-on-o.html>in 
the midst of Obama's 2008 race against Republican Sen. John McCain 
(Ariz.) that the Democrat's campaign was improperly accepting foreign 
money and taking donations over the legal limits. In a partial 
vindication for the Obama campaign, the FEC did not fine Obama for 
taking any foreign money, according to the document."

POLITICO 
<http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/obama-2008-campaign-fined-375000-85784.html?hp=l3>: 
"The fine --- laid out in detail in FEC documents that have yet to be 
made public --- arose from an audit 
<http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/75359.html> of the campaign, 
which was published in April. POLITICO obtained a copy of the 
conciliation agreement 
<http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/document-obama-2008-campaign-fine-conciliation-agreement-85785.html> 
detailing the fine, which was sent to Sean Cairncross, the chief lawyer 
for the Republican National Committee, one of the groups that filed 
complaints about the campaign's FEC reporting from 2008."

Share 
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D45930&title=%E2%80%9CObama%20campaign%20to%20pay%20%24375%2C000%20fine%20for%20omitting%20some%20donor%E2%80%99s%20names%20in%202008%E2%80%B3&description=>
Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> | 
Comments Off


    "Microsoft, AT&T among corporate donors to inauguration"
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=45927>

Posted on January 5, 2013 8:45 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=45927> 
by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

WaPo 
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/microsoft-atandt-help-fund-inauguration/2013/01/04/f478fac8-56c6-11e2-8b9e-dd8773594efc_story.html>: 
"Fewer than a dozen corporations have donated to the official 
Presidential Inaugural Committee, compared with more than 400 
individuals who have given $200 or more. Contribution amounts were not 
released."

Share 
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D45927&title=%E2%80%9CMicrosoft%2C%20AT%26T%20among%20corporate%20donors%20to%20inauguration%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, 
conflict of interest laws <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=20> | 
Comments Off


    "Judge throws book at ATP again; finds that it violated multiple
    state laws on disclosure" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=45923>

Posted on January 5, 2013 8:40 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=45923> 
by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

News 
<http://helenair.com/news/local/judge-throws-book-at-atp-again-finds-that-it-violated/article_3c12ac9a-56d0-11e2-b8fb-0019bb2963f4.html> 
from Montana:

    The conservative "dark money" political group fighting state efforts
    to force disclosure of its finances lost another key court decision
    Friday, as a state judge ruled that it violated multiple state
    campaign-finance and election laws.

    District Judge Jeff Sherlock, of Helena, citing American Tradition
    Partnership's continued failure to produce records requested by the
    state and the court, adopted the state's proposed findings that ATP
    acted as political committee in 2008 and therefore must report its
    spending and donors.

Also 
<http://helenair.com/news/state-and-regional/director-of-conservative-political-group-resigns/article_c880dda0-82fa-522b-85a5-6528e55c6a7c.html>: 
"The director of a secretive conservative group that is being 
investigated by a federal grand jury and fought Montana's campaign 
finance laws has resigned to take a job with a Texas congressman. Donny 
Ferguson, executive director of the American Tradition Partnership, told 
Lee Newspapers of Montana on Thursday that he was leaving the group to 
become a spokesman for Republican Rep. Steve Stockman."

Share 
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D45923&title=%E2%80%9CJudge%20throws%20book%20at%20ATP%20again%3B%20finds%20that%20it%20violated%20multiple%20state%20laws%20on%20disclosure%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, 
chicanery <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12> | Comments Off


    "SC's voter ID lawsuit cost $3.5 million; But court rules federal
    government must cover some of the costs"
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=45919>

Posted on January 5, 2013 8:36 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=45919> 
by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

/The State/: 
<http://www.thestate.com/2013/01/05/2577507/lawmakers-approve-additional-2.html#.UOhWCbbOalh>"It 
cost South Carolina $3.5 million to sue the federal government over the 
state's voter ID law -- but the federal government will have to pay some 
of that bill. Late Friday, a court ruled 
<http://www.scribd.com/doc/119027931/S-C-Voter-ID-court-costs-order> 
that because South Carolina was the "prevailing party," the federal 
government had to pay some of South Carolina's expenses."

Share 
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D45919&title=%E2%80%9CSC%E2%80%99s%20voter%20ID%20lawsuit%20cost%20%243.5%20million%3B%20But%20court%20rules%20federal%20government%20must%20cover%20some%20of%20the%20costs%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


    Texas Solictor General Responds to My Comment About Its Shelby
    County Amicus Brief <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=45916>

Posted on January 5, 2013 8:26 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=45916> 
by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

In response to my January 3 post, Texas Remarkably Fails to Mention in 
Amicus Brief Against Voting Rights Act That Court Found It Engaged in 
Purposeful Racial Discrimination in Voting Last Year 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=45884>, Texas Solicitor General Jonathan 
Mitchell sends along the following reply (posted with his permission):

    Thanks for your interest in the amicus brief
    <http://www.projectonfairrepresentation.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/Shelby-County-v-Holder-Amicus-Brief-Texas.pdf>
    that Texas filed with the Supreme Court in Shelby County v. Holder.

    Your blog posting expresses surprise at the amicus brief's lack of
    discussion of the Texas redistricting litigation and the
    discriminatory-purpose finding issued by the district court in that
    case.  But as you know, Texas has already filed both a
    jurisdictional statement and a reply brief with the Supreme Court
    that explain in great detail why the district court's
    discriminatory-purpose finding was mistaken.  Indeed, the district
    court in the redistricting case itself admitted that there was "no
    direct evidence" of discriminatory purpose, and the analysis in its
    opinion improperly equated partisan motivations with racially
    discriminatory motivations.  The Justices are well aware of the
    discriminatory-purpose finding in the redistricting litigation, and
    they are equally aware of the State's response to it.  Your
    insinuation that  the State's lawyers are attempting to sweep this
    under the rug is unwarranted.

    Our amicus brief (like most amici briefs filed in the Supreme Court)
    was narrowly focused:  It was written to explain the unique burdens
    of the preclearance regime and to explain how the Department of
    Justice has aggravated rather than mitigated these burdens
    after Northwest Austin.  The brief used Texas's experience with its
    voter-identification law to illustrate these features of the section
    5 regime.  Whether those burdens can be justified is a question that
    Shelby County's brief and the other amici briefs have capably
    addressed.  It was not necessary to repeat our discussion of the
    redistricting decision in the Shelby County amicus brief, especially
    when discriminatory-purpose claims will remain viable in section 2
    litigation after section 5 is struck down.

Share 
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D45916&title=Texas%20Solictor%20General%20Responds%20to%20My%20Comment%20About%20Its%20Shelby%20County%20Amicus%20Brief&description=>
Posted in Department of Justice <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=26>, 
Supreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>, Voting Rights Act 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15> | Comments Off


    Cynthia Bauerly Leaves FEC <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=45913>

Posted on January 4, 2013 3:38 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=45913> 
by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

The following announcement arrived via email:

    Statement of Cynthia Bauerly, Commissioner, announcing departure
    from Federal Election Commission

    It has been my honor and privilege to serve on the Federal Election
    Commission since 2008. I am grateful to have had the opportunity to
    serve the country in this role and I will step down on February 1,
    2013.  The past several years have presented rapid and challenging
    developments in the area of campaign finance law. Throughout, I have
    had the pleasure of serving with the Commission's talented and
    dedicated professional staff as we worked to provide the public with
    disclosure of campaign spending and to prevent corruption through
    the federal campaign finance system. This shared commitment to
    transparency and effective enforcement of the law is vital to
    maintaining public confidence in our election process.

More from the Huffington Post. 
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/04/cynthia-bauerly-fec_n_2411805.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular>

I found Commissioner Bauerly to be a consistent voice of reason and 
calm, with a commitment to enforcing the nation's campaign finance laws 
fairly.  I can understand the impulse to leave such a dysfunctional 
agency, though.

I wish her luck in her new endeavors!

Share 
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D45913&title=Cynthia%20Bauerly%20Leaves%20FEC&description=>
Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, federal 
election commission <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=24> | 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://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html
http://electionlawblog.org
Now available: The Voting Wars: http://amzn.to/y22ZTv

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130105/453bb94c/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130105/453bb94c/attachment.png>