[EL] electoral college and campaigns
Rick Hasen
rhasen at law.uci.edu
Wed Jan 9 08:42:09 PST 2013
Thanks Sean. As a reminder for the new year , if anyone responds to
something in particular from the ELB news and commentary, please change
the subject title to something more specific (as I just did).
On 1/9/13 8:34 AM, Sean Parnell wrote:
>
> Rick is exactly right in regards “How Romney Could Have Won.” I recall
> hearing that George W. Bush, asked after the 2000 election was settled
> in his favor whether it was fair that he was President even though he
> received fewer votes than Al Gore, said something along the lines of:
> We ran our campaign under the rules as they were, if the rules instead
> were that you had to get the most votes nationally then I would have
> spent a lot more time in Texas and Georgia getting out the vote.
>
> I don’t have a link or cite to this, and it could very well be
> apocryphal. But the insight attributed to Bush here is pretty
> obviously correct -- had the rules been different in the past, then
> the vote totals (and potentially the outcomes as well) would have been
> much different. There’s no particular reason to believe that Al Gore
> would have won the most votes nationally in 2000 under different
> rules, just as there’s no particular reason to believe we wouldn’t
> have President John Kerry completing his second term this month if
> different rules had been in place in 2004.
>
>
> “How Romney Could Have Won” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=45994>
>
> Posted on January 8, 2013 8:07 am
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=45994> by Rick Hasen
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> National Review
> <http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/337076/how-romney-could-have-won-katrina-trinko>:
> “If votes in every state were awarded by congressional district,
> President-elect Romney would be planning his inauguration right now.”
>
> That strikes me as overly simplistic: if voting took place on a
> district by district basis, the campaigns would have focused their
> efforts much differently.
>
> Sean Parnell
>
> President
>
> Impact Policy Management, LLC
>
> 6411 Caleb Court
>
> Alexandria, VA 22315
>
> 571-289-1374 (c)
>
> sean at impactpolicymanagement.com
>
> *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, January 09, 2013 12:00 AM
> *To:* law-election at UCI.edu
> *Subject:* [EL] ELB News and Commentary 1/9/13
>
>
> “Is America Governable?” Conference at UT Austin Jan. 24-26
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=46027>
>
> Posted on January 8, 2013 8:54 pm
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=46027> by Rick Hasen
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> I’m really looking forward to participating in this symposium
> <https://www.utexas.edu/law/conferences/governable/> organized by
> Sandy Levinson (see the schedule
> <https://www.utexas.edu/law/conferences/governable/sessions/> and list
> of participants
> <https://www.utexas.edu/law/conferences/governable/participants/>).
> Here’s the general description:
>
> Pundits and political figures across the political spectrum now
> regularly refer to the United States government--and to some of
> its state governments as well--as “dysfunctional” or even
> “pathological,” with serious questions raised as to whether the
> United States in the 21st century can even be described as
> “governable.” No doubt the answer depends on what one expects from
> government. If the only test is, for example, continuing to pay
> debts owed by the United States or not willfully falling off
> “fiscal cliffs,” then perhaps the answer is yes, though one
> commentator has compared this standard as the equivalent of a
> parent proudly proclaiming of a child that “he has remained out of
> prison.” Should “governability” be defined as the ability to
> confront a host of challenges facing us in the contemporary world,
> the answer might be less optimistic.
>
> The weekend after the inauguration of President Barack Obama for
> his final term in office is a propitious time for confronting
> basic questions about the health of the American political system.
> The symposium brings together a remarkable array of scholars
> across many disciplines, persons with a variety of high-level
> political experience, and eminent journalists to discuss these and
> other questions of vital relevance to every American (or person
> affected by decisions made by American governments).
>
> Political polarization and the law has become one of my main research
> interests these days. So far I’ve written Fixing Washington
> <http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/126/december12/Book_Review_9410.php>,
> 126 Harvard Law Review 550 (2012) (Larry Lessigreply
> <http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/126/december12/forum_983.php>)
> and End of the Dialogue? Political Polarization, the Supreme Court,
> and Congress
> <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2130190>, 86
> Southern California Law Review (forthcoming 2013).
>
> Share
> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D46027&title=%E2%80%9CIs%20America%20Governable%3F%E2%80%9D%20Conference%20at%20UT%20Austin%20Jan.%2024-26&description=>
>
> Posted inlegislation and legislatures
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=27>, political parties
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=25>, political polarization
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=68>, Supreme Court
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29> | Comments Off
>
>
> “Rhode Island Likely to Lose a House Seat”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=46024>
>
> Posted on January 8, 2013 8:39 pm
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=46024> by Rick Hasen
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> NYT
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/09/us/politics/shrinking-rhode-island-likely-to-lose-house-seat.html?ref=politics&_r=0>:
> “It may seem early to be thinking about the redistribution of House
> seats that will take place after the Census in 2020, but one state,
> Rhode Island, is being forced to because its population is declining.”
>
> Share
> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D46024&title=%E2%80%9CRhode%20Island%20Likely%20to%20Lose%20a%20House%20Seat%E2%80%9D&description=>
>
> Posted inlegislation and legislatures
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=27>, voting
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=31> | Comments Off
>
>
> “Blowing the Whistle on the Pay-to-Play Game: Campaign Financing
> Reform in New Jersey, 1998-2012″
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=46021>
>
> Posted on January 8, 2013 7:42 pm
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=46021> by Rick Hasen
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Rachel Jackson of Princeton has written this case study
> <http://www.princeton.edu/successfulsocieties/content/superfocusareas/traps/PP/policynotes/view.xml?id=221>.
> Here is the abstract:
>
> ABSTRACT: In the late 1990s, civil society reformer Harry Pozycki
> began a grassroots campaign to eliminate pay to play, a form of
> influence buying whereby businesses donated money to New Jersey
> political parties and candidates in exchange for favorable
> consideration in the awarding of government contracts. Pay to play
> had plagued state politics for decades and raised the cost of
> public services. Pozycki pushed for enactment of contracting
> regulations at the state and local levels that would bar companies
> making campaign contributions from being awarded New Jersey
> government contracts. Although civic groups did make steady
> progress in winning public support for reform, the state
> legislature failed to pass regulations because both political
> parties relied heavily on donations from contractors to fund their
> electoral campaigns. But in 2004, outgoing Governor James E.
> McGreevey implemented the regulations by executive order, and his
> successor, Richard J. Codey, carried forward that momentum,
> thereby enacting a state law that made the regulations permanent.
> The state and local pay-to-play reforms ultimately required very
> little administrative cost and avoided legal complications related
> to free speech by their regulation of state contracts rather than
> of campaign financing. By 2006, New Jersey had one of the
> strongest anti-pay-to-play laws in the United States, and several
> other states followed its model. Under two successive governors,
> New Jersey continued to consider the legislation and make changes
> to it through the end of 2012.
>
> Share
> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D46021&title=%E2%80%9CBlowing%20the%20Whistle%20on%20the%20Pay-to-Play%20Game%3A%20Campaign%20Financing%20Reform%20in%20New%20Jersey%2C%201998-2012%E2%80%B3&description=>
>
> Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,
> chicanery <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12> | Comments Off
>
>
> Forum on “The Voting Wars” at Cardozo law Feb. 11
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=46018>
>
> Posted on January 8, 2013 1:16 pm
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=46018> by Rick Hasen
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Cardozo Law School’s Foersheimer Center for Constitutional Democracy
> is putting on this event
> <http://www.cardozo.yu.edu/MemberContentDisplay.aspx?ccmd=ContentDisplay&ucmd=UserDisplay&userid=10374&contentid=25758&folderid=340>
> Feb. 11 at noon:
>
> The Voting Wars: From Florida 2000 to the Next Election Meltdown,
> a discussion with the author
>
> 2/11/2013
>
> 12:00 pm -- 1:30 pm
>
> Richard L. Hasen, Chancellor’s Professor of Law and Political
> Science at the University of California, Irvine, will discuss and
> respond to commentary about his recent book, /The Voting Wars:
> From Florida 2000 to the Next Election Meltdown/. Professor Hasen
> is a well-known expert in the field of election law, having
> co-founded the /Election Law Journal/ and published more than
> eighty articles in the field.
>
> Commenting on Professor Hasen’s book will be election law
> Professors Janai S. Nelson, from St. John’s University School of
> Law; Richard Briffault, from Columbia Law School; and Mark C.
> Alexander, from Seton Hall Law School. Professor Alexander is
> currently running for the New Jersey Senate.
>
> The panel will be moderated by Professor Michelle Adams.
>
> Share
> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D46018&title=Forum%20on%20%E2%80%9CThe%20Voting%20Wars%E2%80%9D%20at%20Cardozo%20law%20Feb.%2011&description=>
>
> Posted inelection administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,
> The Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60> | Comments Off
>
>
> “Why ‘gerrymandering’ doesn’t polarise Congress the way we’re
> told” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=46015>
>
> Posted on January 8, 2013 11:52 am
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=46015> by Rick Hasen
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Harry Enten writes
> <http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/03/gerrymandering-polarise-congress>
> for/The Guardian/.
>
> Share
> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D46015&title=%E2%80%9CWhy%20%E2%80%98gerrymandering%E2%80%99%20doesn%E2%80%99t%20polarise%20Congress%20the%20way%20we%E2%80%99re%20told%E2%80%9D&description=>
>
> Posted inlegislation and legislatures
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=27>, political parties
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=25>, political polarization
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=68> | Comments Off
>
>
> “DISCLOSE Act Causes Less Disclosure”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=46013>
>
> Posted on January 8, 2013 11:51 am
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=46013> by Rick Hasen
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Eric Wang has writtenthis Roll Call oped
> <http://www.rollcall.com/news/wang_disclose_act_causes_less_disclosure-220517-1.html?zkPrintable=true>.
>
> Share
> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D46013&title=%E2%80%9CDISCLOSE%20Act%20Causes%20Less%20Disclosure%E2%80%9D&description=>
>
> Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> |
> Comments Off
>
>
> “Curbing Campaign Cash: Henry Ford, Truman Newberry, and the
> Politics of Progressive Reform” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=46010>
>
> Posted on January 8, 2013 11:43 am
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=46010> by Rick Hasen
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Paula Baker’s new book <http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/bakcur.html>:
>
> In the 1918 Michigan race for the U.S. Senate, auto tycoon Henry
> Ford faced off against a less well-known industrialist, Truman
> Newberry. Bent on countering Ford’s fame and endorsement from
> President Wilson, Newberry’s campaign spent an extravagant amount,
> in fact much more than the law seemed to allow. This led to
> his conviction under the Federal Corrupt Practices Act―but also to
> his eventual exoneration in the first campaign finance case to be
> decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. In /Newberry v. United States/
> the Court ruled that Congress had no jurisdiction to regulate
> primary elections, a controversial decision that allowed southern
> states to create whites-only primaries and stalled campaign
> finance reform.
>
> In the first book in eight decades on this initial test of federal
> campaign finance regulations, Paula Baker examines this case study
> of state and local campaign spending to describe how politicians
> found their footing in an environment created by progressive
> reform and invented modern campaigns. Through this seminal
> election, she pries apart two persistent strains in American
> political culture: suspicion of money in politics and suspicion of
> politics itself.
>
> In reexamining the story of the 1918 election, Baker takes a broad
> view of the history of the political reform to probe some of the
> foundational arguments about why money in politics sometimes seems
> so corrupt. She follows the controversy as it unfolded―beginning
> with progressive reform of politics and the remaking of
> campaigns―then takes readers through the shifting scenes, from
> Detroit to Washington, where the Ford-Newberry conflict played out.
>
> Baker reexamines the political divisions between conservatives and
> progressive reformers to reveal contradictions in how Progressive
> Era federal finance regulations worked, with efforts to weaken the
> power of political parties and democratize politics actually
> making campaigns more expensive. And although the law opened the
> door to partisan prosecutions for spending, Congress remained
> unwilling to craft legislation that actually curbed spending.
>
> While legislation in recent decades largely has aimed at
> contributions rather than spending and the Supreme Court has
> weighed whether specific limits abridge free speech, Progressive
> Era ideas about money and politics continue to guide campaign
> finance reform. /Curbing Campaign Cash/ provides a compelling new
> account of a key chapter in the history of this issue.
>
> Share
> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D46010&title=%E2%80%9CCurbing%20Campaign%20Cash%3A%20%20Henry%20Ford%2C%20Truman%20Newberry%2C%20and%20the%20Politics%20of%20Progressive%20Reform%E2%80%9D&description=>
>
> Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> |
> Comments Off
>
>
> “The Political Speech of Charities in the Face of Citizens United:
> A Defense of Prohibition” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=46007>
>
> Posted on January 8, 2013 11:33 am
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=46007> by Rick Hasen
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Roger Colinvaux has posted this paper
> <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1726407> on SSRN
> (/Case Western Reserve Law Review/). Here is the abstract:
>
> The Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal
> Election Commission makes a Supreme Court challenge to the tax law
> rule that prohibits charities from involvement in political
> activities more likely, and a reexamination of the political
> speech of charities necessary. Part I of the Article surveys the
> history of the political activities prohibition in order to
> emphasize that it was not a reactionary policy but quite
> considered, and that there are strong State interests supporting
> it, including protection of the definition of charity from further
> dilution. Part II of the Article analyzes Citizens United in
> detail and argues that if the Supreme Court considers a challenge
> to the political activities prohibition, Citizens United is
> distinguishable: the purpose of the political activities
> prohibition is not to suppress speech but to define charity; the
> legal setting is tax and not campaign finance; unlike the campaign
> finance rule, violation of the political activities prohibition is
> not criminal; and the political activities prohibition is by
> nature a rule associated with a tax status rather than a ban on
> corporate speech. Accordingly, the political activities
> prohibition, unlike the campaign finance rule, is not a burden on
> speech and therefore is constitutional. Part III of the Article
> discusses cautionary notes to the analysis of Part II, and
> explains that even if there is a constitutional defect to the
> political activities prohibition, the political activities
> limitation on the charitable deduction nonetheless would survive.
> Regardless of the constitutionality of the political activities
> prohibition, Part IV examines a number of possibilities for a
> charitable tax status in which political activity is allowed, and
> argues that the current rule is the best option. The Article
> concludes that the prohibition represents the evolution of a
> century of wrestling with the subject of political activity and
> charity, and the wisdom that the two are not compatible. Such
> wisdom should not be contravened.
>
> Share
> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D46007&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20Political%20Speech%20of%20Charities%20in%20the%20Face%20of%20Citizens%20United%3A%20A%20Defense%20of%20Prohibition%E2%80%9D&description=>
>
> Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, tax
> law and election law <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=22> | Comments Off
>
>
> “Everyone’s Fight: The New Plan to Defeat Big Money”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=46005>
>
> Posted on January 8, 2013 11:27 am
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=46005> by Rick Hasen
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Democracy: A Journal of Ideas, has publishedthis symposium,
> <http://www.democracyjournal.org/27/everyones-fight.php> including:
>
> /An Open Letter to Patriotic Philanthropists/
> <http://www.democracyjournal.org/27/an-open-letter-to-patriotic-philanthropists.php>
> by Bill Moyers & Arnold Hiatt
>
> /Curing Philanthropy’s Blind Spot: One Percent for Democracy/
> <http://www.democracyjournal.org/27/curing-philanthropys-blind-spot-one-percent-for-democracy.php>
> by Nick Penniman & Ian Simmons
>
> /Nonpolitical? No Such Thing Today/
> <http://www.democracyjournal.org/27/nonpolitical-no-such-thing-today.php>
> by Wendell Potter
>
> /How Big Money Corrupts the Budget/
> <http://www.democracyjournal.org/27/how-big-money-corrupts-the-budget.php>
> by Stan Collender
>
> /How Big Money Corrupts the Economy/
> <http://www.democracyjournal.org/27/how-big-money-corrupts-the-economy.php>
> by Jacob S. Hacker and Nathaniel Loewentheil
>
> /Campaign Finance: Remedies Beyond the Court/
> <http://www.democracyjournal.org/27/campaign-finance-remedies-beyond-the-court.php>
> by Trevor Potter and Bryson B. Morgan
>
> /Building a Permanent Majority for Reform/
> <http://www.democracyjournal.org/27/building-a-permanent-majority-for-reform.php>
> by Russ Feingold
>
> Share
> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D46005&title=%E2%80%9CEveryone%E2%80%99s%20Fight%3A%20The%20New%20Plan%20to%20Defeat%20Big%20Money%E2%80%9D&description=>
>
> Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> |
> Comments Off
>
>
> “Texas redistricting appeal not relisted for this Friday”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=46002>
>
> Posted on January 8, 2013 11:10 am
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=46002> by Rick Hasen
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Waiting on Shelby County
> <http://txredistricting.org/post/40023541668/texas-redistricting-appeal-not-relisted-for-this-friday>?
> It wouldn’t surprise me. It would be a lot of work to decide the Texas
> redistricting case, and the case would be moot if the Supreme Court
> strikes down section 5 of the VRA first in /Shelby County/.
>
> Share
> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D46002&title=%E2%80%9CTexas%20redistricting%20appeal%20not%20relisted%20for%20this%20Friday%E2%80%9D&description=>
>
> Posted inDepartment of Justice <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=26>,
> redistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>, Voting Rights Act
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15> | Comments Off
>
>
> “Early voting in New York easier said than done”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=45999>
>
> Posted on January 8, 2013 10:45 am
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=45999> by Rick Hasen
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> See here.
> <http://poststar.com/news/local/early-voting-in-new-york-easier-said-than-done/article_4a1c8e4c-594a-11e2-841e-0019bb2963f4.html>
>
> Share
> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D45999&title=%E2%80%9CEarly%20voting%20in%20New%20York%20easier%20said%20than%20done%E2%80%9D&description=>
>
> Posted inelection administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>
> | Comments Off
>
>
> “Attorney general rivals offer bills to require photo ID to vote”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=45996>
>
> Posted on January 8, 2013 8:09 am
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=45996> by Rick Hasen
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> News from Virginia: “A year after controversial voter identification
> legislation passed the Virginia General Assembly, several Republican
> lawmakers are proposing even greater restrictions on the
> identification required to cast a ballot, including the requirement of
> photo identification. Del. Robert B. Bell, R-Albemarle, will introduce
> what he terms “Photo ID ― No Exceptions,” a measure that would require
> voters to present valid government-issued photo identification in
> order to vote. Acquiring the identification would also require proof
> of U.S. citizenship, which the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles
> requires to obtain identification.”
>
> Share
> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D45996&title=%E2%80%9CAttorney%20general%20rivals%20offer%20bills%20to%20require%20photo%20ID%20to%20vote%E2%80%9D&description=>
>
> Posted inelection administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,
> The Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>, voter id
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9> | Comments Off
>
>
> “How Romney Could Have Won” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=45994>
>
> Posted on January 8, 2013 8:07 am
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=45994> by Rick Hasen
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> National Review
> <http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/337076/how-romney-could-have-won-katrina-trinko>:
> “If votes in every state were awarded by congressional district,
> President-elect Romney would be planning his inauguration right now.”
>
> That strikes me as overly simplistic: if voting took place on a
> district by district basis, the campaigns would have focused their
> efforts much differently.
>
> Share
> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D45994&title=%E2%80%9CHow%20Romney%20Could%20Have%20Won%E2%80%9D&description=>
>
> Posted incampaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>, electoral
> college <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=44> | Comments Off
>
>
> “SEC Moves to Require That Corporations Disclose All Political
> Spending” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=45991>
>
> Posted on January 8, 2013 8:01 am
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=45991> by Rick Hasen
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Press release
> <http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/pressroomredirect.cfm?ID=3790>: “The
> Corporate Reform Coalition <http://corporatereformcoalition.org/>
> applauds the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) commitment to
> seek disclosure of all corporate political spending in response to a
> historic demonstration of investor demand for such a rule-making. In
> one of the last actions of departing SEC Chair Mary Schapiro’s term,
> the agency announced that it will consider a proposed rule to require
> that public companies provide disclosure to shareholders regarding the
> use of corporate resources for political activities. A petition
> requesting this rulemaking was filed in 2011 by a bipartisan committee
> of leading law professors.”
>
> Share
> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D45991&title=%E2%80%9CSEC%20Moves%20to%20Require%20That%20Corporations%20Disclose%20All%20Political%20Spending%E2%80%9D&description=>
>
> Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> |
> Comments Off
>
>
> “Candidate Challenges City Limits On Funding”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=45988>
>
> Posted on January 8, 2013 7:59 am
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=45988> by Rick Hasen
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> WSJ
> <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323482504578228191663513914.html>:
> “New York mayoral candidate George McDonald on Monday filed a lawsuit
> to prevent the city’s Campaign Finance Board from taking enforcement
> action against his campaign for accepting contributions in excess of
> city limits and a loan that is prohibited by city law.”
>
> Share
> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D45988&title=%E2%80%9CCandidate%20Challenges%20City%20Limits%20On%20Funding%E2%80%9D&description=>
>
> Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> |
> 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://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html
> http://electionlawblog.org
> Now available: The Voting Wars: http://amzn.to/y22ZTv
>
--
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/20130109/79807fba/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130109/79807fba/attachment.png>
View list directory